Re: Rationale for U+10FFFF?

From: Doug Ewell (dewell@compuserve.com)
Date: Mon Mar 06 2000 - 00:11:32 EST

Next message: Doug Schiffer: "Re: Paper on the (misnaming) of the Hangzhou numerals in ISO/IEC 1064"
Previous message: Tom Emerson: "Paper on the (misnaming) of the Hangzhou numerals in ISO/IEC 1064 6-1"
Maybe in reply to: Harald Tveit Alvestrand: "Rationale for U+10FFFF?"
Next in thread: Dan Oscarsson: "Re: Rationale for U+10FFFF?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

I wrote:

> You couldn't allocate through U-001FFFFF (plane 31) because everything
> from plane 18 on could not be reached with UTF-16.

Of course I should have said "from plane 17 on."

-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California

Next message: Doug Schiffer: "Re: Paper on the (misnaming) of the Hangzhou numerals in ISO/IEC 1064"
Previous message: Tom Emerson: "Paper on the (misnaming) of the Hangzhou numerals in ISO/IEC 1064 6-1"
Maybe in reply to: Harald Tveit Alvestrand: "Rationale for U+10FFFF?"
Next in thread: Dan Oscarsson: "Re: Rationale for U+10FFFF?"
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 - 17:20:59 EDT