Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Surrogate space in Unicode)

From: Tobias Hunger (
Date: Tue Feb 20 2001 - 12:39:59 EST

Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 20 February 2001 17:03, you wrote:
> In a message dated 2001-02-20 06:18:34 Pacific Standard Time,
> > >into a new library called 'Babylon'. It will provide all the
> > > functionality defined in the Unicode standard (it is not Unicode but
> > > ISO 10646 compliant as it uses 32bit wide characters internally)

> > Eh? Unicode has no aversion to either a 32-bit encoding form (UTF-32 -
> > see UTR#19 or PDUTR#27) or with C++.

> I believe that was David's point; he was quoting someone else who believed
> that a 32-bit representation was compliant with ISO/IEC 10646 but not with
> Unicode.


Looks like David was quoting me. I am working on Babylon and wanted to make
clear that it is not unicode conformant as its API uses 32bit wide characters
which violates clause 1 of Section 3.1. Babylon can im-/export UTF-8/16/32
(UTF-7 is in the works) though, so I'm aiming for 'unicode compliant
interchange of 16bit Unicode characters' with Babylon. For more details
please see pages 107/108 of the Standard.

I was not implying that Unicode can't coexist with 32bit wide characters, nor
that it has any problems with C++... maybe I should have soemone who speaks
better english then I do write my announcements in the future. Sorry for any
misunderstandings I might have caused.

- --

- -------------------------------------------------------------------
Tobias Hunger The box said: 'Windows 95 or better' So I installed Linux.
- -------------------------------------------------------------------

Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:19 EDT