RE: Unicode Myths

From: Rick Cameron (Rick.Cameron@crystaldecisions.com)
Date: Fri Apr 12 2002 - 14:02:49 EDT

Previous message: Andy Heninger: "Re: MS/Unix BOM FAQ again (small fix)"
Maybe in reply to: Mark Davis: "Unicode Myths"
Next in thread: Mark Davis: "Re: Unicode Myths"
Reply: Mark Davis: "Re: Unicode Myths"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Mark Davis wrote:

> The surrogate and noncharacter code points are permanently reserved, and
can't ever--now or in the future--have code
> points assigned to them, whereas the unassigned can have code points
assigned to them in the future.

Huh? The code points can't have code points assigned to them?

Do you want to rephrase that? It's a good example of how hard it is to keep
the terminology straight!

Thanks

- rick cameron

Previous message: Andy Heninger: "Re: MS/Unix BOM FAQ again (small fix)"
Maybe in reply to: Mark Davis: "Unicode Myths"
Next in thread: Mark Davis: "Re: Unicode Myths"
Reply: Mark Davis: "Re: Unicode Myths"
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 : Fri Apr 12 2002 - 12:34:27 EDT