Re: terminology (correction)

From: David Hopwood (david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk)
Date: Wed May 08 2002 - 08:52:44 EDT


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I wrote:
> IMHO it's the definition of "Unicode code point" that is problematic,
> not "Unicode scalar value". They should be synonyms and should have the
> domain 0..0xD7FF union 0xE000..0x10FFFF. (This is consistent with the
> definition of "code point" for other CCSs, where there is no requirement
> for the domain to be a contiguous range of integers. The fact that
> there are properties in the UCD for 0xD800..0xDFFF is just a historical
> artifact.)
>
> It is UTF-16 (CEF) code units that have the domain 0..0x10FFFF.

I obviously meant
"It is UTF-16 (CEF) code units that can include 0xD800..0xDFFF."

- --
David Hopwood <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk>

Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/
RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5 0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 15 01
Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I revoke a
public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key has been
seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see www.fipr.org/rip

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBPNkfijkCAxeYt5gVAQGEIwf+I5H/BslQZKCtarKeEkRl34ywgI4TB2ej
awyI2/kSg40eG9T3AsWbq/ZIlmn1p5qkfvuwLWaMgVmpXRXebXzXuMPGQMGQBD6f
rRyWj5epIugX8L/Pf0LSSWCBW5PVQ8WuhKVsm67aCbzSrHFL/uYnpxfwWqHi7xny
WJvj9OC0HuALQDMifELRudNMul24gF2G3xDhzzmKuZVuPksje1dN9xsfrqqrxglT
fenAMyVNLuKlMmaLb8bAFwm05r3ObWAADvA6TkRoZGiY0oRHjSwOpO+r8H61iTpZ
lQiEpnFb0I18j4cYumJZwhtKTDjS+ZIgw1OvInV7FmQx8oMOgGl78A==
=6X06
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed May 08 2002 - 11:07:47 EDT