Glenn Adams writes:
> Why do you continue to mis-represent the facts. The Unicode
> Standard *does not* have an unlimited repertoire. The repertoires of
> Unicode and 10646 *are* identical. Let me ask something of you Keld,
> have you ever read the Unicode standard? If so, then you apparently
> have a learning disability; if not, then you have no business making
> these statements.
Well, Ken just told me that the Uncode repertoire was open.
I admit that I have not read every page of the Unicode 2.0 standard,
but I have actually studied the book fairly intesively in some
aspects. I did try to look up the definition of "repertoire"
but it was not in the index. And there is no "definitions" section.
So apparantly there is no definition of "repertoire"
in Unicode 2.0. How can you then say that it is so well defined?
Have you read the book?
> Just to make the facts clear, what Unicode calls an abstract character
> *is not* a necessarily a member of the Unicode repertoire. The Unicode
> repertoire is precisely the collection of characters coded as single
> UCS-2 code values or two UCS-2 code values in the case of surrogate pairs
> (i.e., in both instances equivalent to a single UCS-4 code value and
> a single element of the 10646 repertoire).
Yes, possibly, but then at least for the surrogates you really
differ in the definition of the repertoire of "something" in
Unicode and the repertoire of characters in 10646.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:37 EDT