> From: Peter_Constable@sil.org [mailto:Peter_Constable@sil.org]
>
> On 03/08/2001 07:40:25 PM "Ayers, Mike" wrote:
>
> > If you really want to finish the job, there's always
> UTF-32, which
> >should do rather nicely until we meet the space aliens aith the
> >4,293,853,186 character alphabet!
>
> Um... no. The 1,113,023 character alphabet (one more than the
> encodable
> scalar values in the codespace supported by UTF-8 / 16 / 32).
>
Um... no. The UTF-32 CES can handle much more than the current
space of the Unicode CCS. As far as I can tell, it's good to go until we
need more than 32 bits to represent the ACR. I'm actually surprised that
this comment was so misunderstood. Ah, well...
/|/|ike
P.S. If the acronyms didn't make sense, try
http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr17/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:20 EDT