Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Surrogate space i

From: Tom Lord (lord@emf.net)
Date: Thu Feb 22 2001 - 00:44:41 EST

Next message: Thomas Chan: "fictional scripts revisited"
Previous message: Tom Lord: "An Aburdly Brief Introduction to Unicode (was Re: Perception ...)"
Maybe in reply to: Antoine Leca: "Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Surrogate space i"
Next in thread: Peter_Constable@sil.org: "Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Surrogate space i"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

What exactly _would_ be wrong with calling UNICODE a
thirty-two bit encoding

If I have a 32 bit integer type, holding a Unicode code point, I have
11 bits left over to hold other data. That's worth knowing.

        Btw, saying approximately 20.087 bits (Am I calculating that
        right -- log2[ 17*65536 ]?) causes many people to think they
        are just being teased.

They'll get over it.

Thomas Lord
regexps.com

Next message: Thomas Chan: "fictional scripts revisited"
Previous message: Tom Lord: "An Aburdly Brief Introduction to Unicode (was Re: Perception ...)"
Maybe in reply to: Antoine Leca: "Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Surrogate space i"
Next in thread: Peter_Constable@sil.org: "Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Surrogate space i"
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 - 17:21:19 EDT