From: Hans Aberg (haberg@math.su.se)
Date: Sat Apr 23 2005 - 17:14:08 CST
At 14:00 -0700 2005/04/23, Doug Ewell wrote:
> > We are essentially back at a discussion held here sometime ago: The
>> limit of number of Unicode code points is due to design flaw in the
>> UTF-16 encoding, where the engineers who did it failed to properly
>> separate the notions of character numbers and integer-to-binary
>> encoding.
>
>Whether this statement, or its underlying assumption, are true or false
>is orthogonal to my point. There is no need for a universal character
>encoding for every alphabet invented by a high-school kid, and no need
>for Unicode to turn itself into a self-service registry for every nonce
>glyph or variant that someone thinks is a "character."
A Unicode registry of private characters would clearly need to define
what should be included, at least in order to avoid abuses. Since the
technology is able to handle it, it seems best to define the notion
of what should be considered to be a legitimate character for
registration, and then accommodate for that.
-- Hans Aberg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 23 2005 - 17:15:26 CST