You seem to be implying that Viranga's question was:
"Can one encode all Unicode code points using EUC?"
That is a strange interpretation of:
"Is it ok for Unicode code points to be encoded/serialized
using EUC?"
Furthermore, Viranga's context appears to be XML, in which
case it *is* possible to encode *all* Unicode code points
using EUC (or ISO-8859-1 or ASCII or ...)
Misha
On 30/08/2001 15:44:55 Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> Misha Wolf wrote:
> > IMO, I correctly replied to Viranga's question and I've
> > no idea what you're talking about below.
>
> Viranga's short question was: "Is it ok for Unicode code points to be
> encoded/serialized using EUC?"
>
> My (Marco's) short answer was: "EUC size simply doesn't fit Unicode."
>
> Your (Misha's) short answer was: "Yes, it is OK for Unicode code points to
> be encoded using EUC."
>
> If we are all talking about the same Unicode and the same EUC, and we all
> use the same logic, then your short reply is plain wrong.
>
> If we are talking about different Unicodes or different EUC's, or we use
> different models of logic thought, then sorry for the misunderstanding.
>
> For the sake of precision, I will define my terms and logic:
>
> - My "Unicode" is an encoding standard described in
> <http://www.unicode.org>, which encompasses about 1,000,000 codes.
>
> - My "EUC" is an encoding scheme described in
> <http://czyborra.com/utf/#EUC>, which allows about 8,000 codes.
>
> - In my logic, one million things cannot be identified by eight thousands
> numbers.
>
> Regards.
> _ Marco
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Aug 30 2001 - 12:55:50 EDT