Re: explicit 20 bit Unicode range limit

From: Michael Everson (everson@indigo.ie)
Date: Wed Jan 27 1999 - 10:49:11 EST

Next message: John Jenkins: "Re: Myanmar (Burmese) [accepted for future inclusion]"
Previous message: schererm@us.ibm.com: "Re: explicit 20 bit Unicode range limit"
Maybe in reply to: Michael Everson: "Re: explicit 20 bit Unicode range limit"
Next in thread: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: explicit 20 bit Unicode range limit"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

I guess that simplistically, Unicode is a 16-bit standard with some ways to
expand that, and 10646 is a 32-bit standard. If you are going to go away
from the ways which Unicode employs to expand its 16-bitness, why not just
go the whole hog and exploit 10646 to the fullest? Eventually (a hundred
years from now maybe) that's what people will do.

--
Michael Everson, Everson Gunn Teoranta ** http://www.indigo.ie/egt
15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland
Guthán: +353 1 478-2597 ** Facsa: +353 1 478-2597 (by arrangement)
27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn;  Baile an Bhóthair;  Co. Átha Cliath; Éire

Next message: John Jenkins: "Re: Myanmar (Burmese) [accepted for future inclusion]"
Previous message: schererm@us.ibm.com: "Re: explicit 20 bit Unicode range limit"
Maybe in reply to: Michael Everson: "Re: explicit 20 bit Unicode range limit"
Next in thread: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: explicit 20 bit Unicode range limit"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:44 EDT