RE: Code pages and Unicode

William_J_G Overington <wjgo underscore 10009 at btinternet dot com>
wrote:

>>> Until then, I find further speculation rather pointless and would
>>> love if it moved off this list (until such time).
>
> It is harmless fun, indeed it is fun that assists learning and
> understanding, and so as long as it does not go on for a long time,
> I think that it is good.

If it were limited to the fun and the hypothetical, I would probably
agree.

But some people seem to be dead serious about the need to go beyond 1.1
million code points, and are making dead-serious arguments that we need
to plan for it. I don't know if they truly believe we are going to
communicate with space aliens using Unicode (judicious use of 😉 might
reassure me here), or whether they think adding 2 billion code points
will provide a back door to encoding all sorts of non-character "every
grain of sand on the beach" objects, or what. But it isn't rooted in
any sort of reality; both UTC and WG2 have permanently sealed the upper
limit at 0x10FFFF, and knowledgeable people have tried and tried until
they are blue in the face to explain why this is NOT a problem.

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