Keld Simonsen writes:
> OK. I was mislead by beliving that a Unicode "abstract character" could
> be consisting og more than one code point. This is not so, I learnt.
> Many of my arguments have been based on that misunderstanding.
Well, it can have two codepoints, but only if they form a surrogate-pair.
> OK. I was here mislead by the term "surrogate character" indicating
> that this was a character - and I also think they were explained to be
> characters by some Unicode people on the Unicode list some time ago, but
> I do not think there is a need to find that citation. I think the
> "character" in "surrogate character" is misleading, you probably should
> use some other word here, maybe "surrogate code point", or (why not?)
Remember that "character" is not a formally defined term in Unicode;
"abstract character" is defined, and so is "base character" and
"combining character" and lots of others, but "character" by itself
is a purely informal term.
-- John Cowan email@example.com e'osai ko sarji la lojban.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:37 EDT