RE: Wired 4.09 p. 130: Lost in Translation

From: Murray Sargent (
Date: Tue Aug 27 1996 - 17:42:38 EDT

>UTF-16 provides the extension capability that David Beroff asks for.
>Re UTF-16 and its 1 million characters, TrueType fonts are fundamentally
>limited to a maximum of 65536 characters (the CharSet to glyph tables use
>16-bit indices). So it appears that some kind of font linking will be needed
>to support UTF-16 with TrueType fonts.
>-----Original Message-----
From: unicode@Unicode.ORG [SMTP:unicode@Unicode.ORG]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 1996 1:26 PM
To: unicode@Unicode.ORG
Subject: Fwd: Wired 4.09 p. 130: Lost in Translation
Hi. This was sent to me in response to the article in Wired -- I told
I THINK 2.0 supports variable length, but you would be better able to
answer him


Subject: Wired 4.09 p. 130: Lost in Translation
Sent: 08/27 11:54 PM
Received: 08/28 12:22 AM
From: David Beroff,
To: Jose Manuel Tesoro,

Interesting 16-bit vs. 32-bit issue for
characters. (I guess nobody seriously
considered 24-bit characters?)

Anyway, I have an even more radical idea.
Could Unicode support variable-length
characters, so that one or more Unicode
values would mean "shift"? This would
allow quite a number of Chinese (etc.)
characters to be represented in the
second Unicode byte-pair.

Or am I being way too whimsical?

-- David Beroff <>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:31 EDT