Re: Code pages and Unicode

On 22/08/11 16:55, Doug Ewell wrote:
> srivas sinnathurai<sisrivas at blueyonder dot co dot uk> wrote:
>
>> The true lifting of UTF-16 would be to UTF-32.
>>
>> Leave the UTF-16 un touched and make the new half versatile as possible.
>>
>> I think any other solution is just a patch up for the timebeing.
> There is no evidence whatsoever that this is a problem that needs to be
> solved, not in 700 or 800 years, not ever. Ken's words are again being
> ignored.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14
> www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell ­

I see at least one reason to extend the present 17 planes Unicode space:
that would provide space for a RTL PUA. ☺

Presently, UTF-16 uses surrogate pairs to address non-BMP characters: HS
LS (High Surrogate followed by Low Surrogate).

What would happen if we imbricate them? Would HS1 HS2 LS1 LS2 be
acceptable to address more characters?
Received on Mon Aug 22 2011 - 12:18:44 CDT