RE: Code pages and Unicode (wasn't really: RE: Endangered Alphabets)

From: Doug Ewell <doug_at_ewellic.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:07:29 -0700

"Mark E. Shoulson" <mark at kli dot org> wrote:

> And indeed, it went the other way too, back when ISO-10646 had not 17,
> but 65536 *planes* and someone provided some reasonable evidence (or
> just plain reasoned arguments) that 4.3 *billion* characters was
> probably overkill.

Technically, I think 10646 was always limited to 32,768 planes so that
one could always address a code point with a 32-bit signed integer (a
nod to the Java fans).

Of course, 2.1 billion characters is also overkill, but the advent of
UTF-16 was how we ended up with 17 planes.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14
www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell ­
Received on Fri Aug 19 2011 - 16:08:50 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Aug 19 2011 - 16:08:50 CDT