Re: is GB18030 a combination of CJK and CJK extension?

From: Doug Ewell (dewell@adelphia.net)
Date: Sat Jul 20 2002 - 18:16:37 EDT

Previous message: John H. Jenkins: "Re: [OpenType] Proposal: Ligatures w/ ZWJ in OpenType"
In reply to: Eric Muller: "Re: is GB18030 a combination of CJK and CJK extension?"
Next in thread: Markus Scherer: "Re: is GB18030 a combination of CJK and CJK extension?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Eric Muller wrote:

> GB 18030 can be three different things, depending on how you
> interpret it:
>
> 3. it is roughly a UTF, the most notable deviations being that it can
> represent a bit more than 0x0 - 0x10ffff and allows the surrogate code
> points.

The November 2000 revision of GB 18030 removed the mappings to surrogate code points that had been previously assigned in the original (March 2000) version.

-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California

Previous message: John H. Jenkins: "Re: [OpenType] Proposal: Ligatures w/ ZWJ in OpenType"
In reply to: Eric Muller: "Re: is GB18030 a combination of CJK and CJK extension?"
Next in thread: Markus Scherer: "Re: is GB18030 a combination of CJK and CJK extension?"
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 : Sat Jul 20 2002 - 16:30:25 EDT