Ken,
Can you give us a hint as to what this would be used for?
I think that if there is a specific problem that this addresses that the
impact on other systems should be considered. If you approve it then they
are people like me who might end up having to support it.
If they like length maybe we could encode UTF-32 in '1' and '0' characters
for a fixed 21 byte encoding. It would also sort in binary but it has the
advantage that not only hex nuts can read it but octal folks as well.
Another approach that would be IBM 1401 friendly is to convert the Unicode
code point into decimal number and then convert each decimal digit into a
base 5 and a base 2 number. We can call it UTF-5.2.
The only thing that I can see is that it could be used for systems with
6-bit bytes. This would also work for the 1401 except that the max storage
is 16,000 bytes. It could handle up to 2,000 characters of data minus the
space needed for code. If this is what it is for, don't expect me to pull
out my Autocoder manuals and start coding for it.
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org]On
> Behalf Of Kenneth Whistler
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 3:05 PM
> To: yves@realnames.com
> Cc: unicode@unicode.org
> Subject: RE: UTF-17
>
>
> Yves asked:
>
> > Isn't UTF-17 just a sarcastic comment on all of this UTF-xxxx
> discussion?
>
> No, it is deadly serious. That's why Rick and I went to the trouble to
> write up and submit an Internet Draft on the topic.
>
> --Ken
>
> Warning: Not all irony (1) is explicitly tagged in this message.
>
> (1) Irony n. The use of words to express something other than and
> esp. the opposite of the literal meaning.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:17:18 EDT