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

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela at cs dot tut dot fi> wrote:

> And now we think that a little over a million is enough for everyone,
> just as they thought in the late 1980s that 16 bits is enough for
> everyone.

I know this is an enjoyable exercise — people love to ridicule Bill
Gates for his comment in 1981 about 640K, even though that was an order
of magnitude larger than any home computer of the day — but every time
I hear someone protest that the Unicode code space won't be large
enough, it eventually comes down to one of:

1. Expanding scope to cover extraterrestrial characters
2. Expanding scope to cover glyphs or other things that aren't
   currently considered "characters"

I don't worry about item 1. I suppose I should worry some about item 2,
ever since the emoji experience.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14
www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell ­