Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>
> > > A. Intentional private use for non-exchanged data [...]
> >
> I have some objection. One should not use PUA codes for
> internal purposes [...]
> If only a few internal ones needed, use noncharacters like the ones in
> U+FDD0..U+FDEF. If many, use these like surrogates or use codes higher
> than U+10FFFF if the application allows.
It is exactly what I meant when I said "why using PUA codepoints at all" for
such ultra-private codes, and codes higher than 0x10FFFF was exactly the
solution I had in mind.
As a second thought, using codes higher than 0x0FFFFFFF is even safer,
because it also accounts for the fact that, theoretically, ISO 10646 uses 31
bits.
Of course, all this is only possible for applications that use 32-bit
quantities to handle Unicode characters.
_ Marco
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:17:16 EDT