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

Date: Tue Feb 20 2001 - 13:39:37 EST

On 02/20/2001 11:18:40 AM Tobias Hunger wrote:

>Looks like David was quoting me. I am working on Babylon and wanted to
>clear that it is not unicode conformant as its API uses 32bit wide
>which violates clause 1 of Section 3.1.

This is something that UTC should clean up because C1 is obsolete. In fact,
UTC just took that action when they met a couple of weeks ago:

[86-M8] Motion: Amend Unicode 3.1 to change the Chapter 3, C1 conformance
clause to read "A process shall interpret Unicode code units (values) in
accordance with the Unicode transformation format used." (passed)

So, when TUS3.1 is published later this year, you will not have any
problems with conformance with that version of the Standard. (C1 was really
obsolete back in version 2.0 when UTF-8 was first adopted into the
Standard, but it took a while for that to get fixed.)

- Peter

Peter Constable

Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <>

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