Re: ISO10646-1 XLFD registration (Plane 1 and higher)

From: Valeriy E. Ushakov (uwe@ptc.spbu.ru)
Date: Tue Apr 04 2000 - 11:24:53 EDT

Next message: John Jenkins: "Re: Layout of Unicode 3.0 book with FrameMaker"
Previous message: Mark Davis: "Re: Layout of Unicode 3.0 book with FrameMaker"
Maybe in reply to: Markus Kuhn: "Re: ISO10646-1 XLFD registration (Plane 1 and higher)"
Next in thread: Dan Oscarsson: "Re: ISO10646-1 XLFD registration"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 06:25:05AM -0800, Markus Kuhn wrote:

> > You may want to also consider the *21*-bit option now.
>
> Why? If we extend APIs and data structures from 16-bit integer types,
> then very naturally we will use 32-bit integer types. I see nowhere any
> benefit whatsoever in artificially introducing restrictions for
> character/glyph identifiers to 21 bits,

Lisp with tagged fixnums comes to mind. E.g., emacs have 28 bits for
(immediate) integer values.

SY, Uwe

-- 
uwe@ptc.spbu.ru                         |       Zu Grunde kommen
http://www.ptc.spbu.ru/~uwe/            |       Ist zu Grunde gehen

Next message: John Jenkins: "Re: Layout of Unicode 3.0 book with FrameMaker"
Previous message: Mark Davis: "Re: Layout of Unicode 3.0 book with FrameMaker"
Maybe in reply to: Markus Kuhn: "Re: ISO10646-1 XLFD registration (Plane 1 and higher)"
Next in thread: Dan Oscarsson: "Re: ISO10646-1 XLFD registration"
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 - 17:21:00 EDT