RE: So how about U+D7FD for a NOP then?

From: Jon Hanna (jon@hackcraft.net)
Date: Fri Jan 21 2005 - 16:44:34 CST

Next message: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk: "Re: Subject: Re: 32'nd bit & UTF-8"

Previous message: Lars Kristan: "RE: UTF-8 'BOM' (was RE: Subject: Re: 32'nd bit & UTF-8)"
In reply to: Arcane Jill: "So how about U+D7FD for a NOP then?"
Next in thread: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk: "Re: So how about U+D7FD for a NOP then?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

> Imagine if the codepoint U+D7FD were reserved as NOP, having
> properties which
> essentially made it completely ignorable and invisible. It
> could simply be
> thrown away, whereever it were encounted.

I *think* that this was exactly what Unicode were thinking of with U+FEFF, but ISO were thinking of ZWNBS for the same codepoint and merging Unicode and ISO 10646 lead to the ambiguity.

However I have only the vaguest notion that this is the history and won't be at all surprised if someone corrects me.

Regards,
Jon Hanna
Work: <http://www.selkieweb.com/>
Play: <http://www.hackcraft.net/>
Chat: <irc://irc.freenode.net/selkie>

Next message: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk: "Re: Subject: Re: 32'nd bit & UTF-8"
Previous message: Lars Kristan: "RE: UTF-8 'BOM' (was RE: Subject: Re: 32'nd bit & UTF-8)"
In reply to: Arcane Jill: "So how about U+D7FD for a NOP then?"
Next in thread: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk: "Re: So how about U+D7FD for a NOP then?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 21 2005 - 16:48:04 CST