Time format characters 'h' and 'k'
Peter Constable via CLDR-Users
cldr-users at unicode.org
Mon Aug 21 08:12:01 CDT 2017
This is waaaayyyyy off topic.
Sent from my Windows 10 phone
From: Philippe Verdy via CLDR-Users<mailto:cldr-users at unicode.org>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 5:22 AM
To: mark<mailto:mark at macchiato.com>
Cc: Kip Cole<mailto:kipcole9 at gmail.com>; Martin J. Dürst<mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>; cldr-users at unicode.org<mailto:cldr-users at unicode.org>
Subject: Re: Time format characters 'h' and 'k'
But then why do you think that surrogates should have been allocated elsewhere? If surrogates at been alocated at top, the low codepoints used by ASCII would not be available for surrogates, and all code points would be larger; UTF-8 may still place ASCII at top in the low position, but the conversion between codepoint numeric values and UTF-8 would have been radically different.
So what I understand now is that for your "top" word, you meant F800..FFFF ("end" of the BMP: I do agree with that), but I had understood you meant they should have been at "start" (at 0000..07FF) for an unexplained strange reason. In common sense, "top" opposes to "bottom" and means the start, not the end, and the charmaps published are also placing the start of planes at top of charts, not the bottom (this also matches the normal reading order in all modern scripts)...
2017-08-21 14:03 GMT+02:00 Mark Davis ☕️ <mark at macchiato.com<mailto:mark at macchiato.com>>:
And your reply "placing the surrogates at top would have avoided the emergence of UTF-8 with compatiblity with 7-bit US-ASCII" doesn't make sense to me.
Having the surrogate zone at D800..DFFF vs F800..FFFF had no effect on the development of UTF-8.
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p at wanadoo.fr<mailto:verdy_p at wanadoo.fr>> wrote:
2017-08-20 16:13 GMT+02:00 Mark Davis ☕️ <mark at macchiato.com<mailto:mark at macchiato.com>>:
> placing the surrogates at top would have avoided the emergence of UTF-8 with compatiblity with 7-bit US-ASCII
I don't see what you're talking about at all — and I was one of the people present at the times when all the decisions were being made.
I was replying explicitly to your own remark about the placement of surrogates in the BMP. You suggested explicitly that it is an "historical anomaly" and retrospectively think it should have been at top of it. I included your own citation:
>> "As I recall, one of those historical anomalies (like the surrogate range not being at the top of the BMP)."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CLDR-Users