RE: U+xxxx, U-xxxxxx, and the basics
From: Marco.Cimarosti@icl.com
Date: Wed Mar 08 2000 - 10:59:40 EST
- Next message: Keld Jørn Simonsen: "Re: U+xxxx, U-xxxxxx, and the basics"
- Previous message: John Cowan: "Re: U+xxxx, U-xxxxxx, and the basics"
- Maybe in reply to: Mike Brown: "U+xxxx, U-xxxxxx, and the basics"
- Next in thread: Keld Jørn Simonsen: "Re: U+xxxx, U-xxxxxx, and the basics"
- Reply: Keld Jørn Simonsen: "Re: U+xxxx, U-xxxxxx, and the basics"
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
[ attachment ]
- Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote, responding to me:
>>I understood that Unicode had extended beyond the
>>0x0..0xFFFF range. The fact that no code point
>>is assigned yet in the 0x10000..0x10FFFF range
>>does not mean that these code points don't exist.
>
> Yes, but my last reading was that surrogates are characters.
> Maybe it was changed with 3.0
Uhm... Probably they are: the meaning of "character" is every day more
vague.
But this brings another question: what is the role of surrogates if I am
using 32-bit units?
Consider this *UCS-4* fragment:
... U-00D8000 U-00DC00 ...
What kind of animal would that be!? An (absurd) sequence of two characters
or an alternative spelling for U-010000?
Ciao. Marco
- Next message: Keld Jørn Simonsen: "Re: U+xxxx, U-xxxxxx, and the basics"
- Previous message: John Cowan: "Re: U+xxxx, U-xxxxxx, and the basics"
- Maybe in reply to: Mike Brown: "U+xxxx, U-xxxxxx, and the basics"
- Next in thread: Keld Jørn Simonsen: "Re: U+xxxx, U-xxxxxx, and the basics"
- Reply: Keld Jørn Simonsen: "Re: U+xxxx, U-xxxxxx, and the basics"
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
[ attachment ]
- Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2
: Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:59 EDT