On 06/25/2001 02:13:02 AM Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>5) UTF-32S is a borderline case. I am quite sure that it was proposed with
>tongue in cheek...
No, it was proposed in all seriousness in the same document in which Oracle
and friends proposed UTF-8s.
>6) UTF-16X (also named UTF-16S or UTF-16F) is definitely humor, although I
>am probably not the only one to think that it is technically more
"serious"
>than UTF-8S.
I didn't get the impression that it was presented with humour in mind. I
didn't read the original message in which it was introduced carefully,
however. But it seems to me that it did get picked up as a serious
possibility for consideration / comparison in the UTF-8s discussion.
>OK. End of deadly serious content. Please everybody restart joking.
Oops! Sorry, I was being altogether too serious.
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <peter_constable@sil.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:17:19 EDT