From: John Cowan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Oct 17 2003 - 07:35:53 CST
Jill Ramonsky scripsit:
> Aha. Then at least we agree on something. An 0x110000 character space is
> not big enough for everyTHING.
You persist in misunderstanding. Suppose I came along and told you
I wanted to create a Unicode codepoint for each word in every language
on Earth. Would you blithely allocate me a 24-billion-codepoint
private space? And then my friend comes along and wants to do the
same, but he can't use my encoding because he relies on binary
ordering and he needs to get the languages grouped in alphabetical
order, whereas I sort them by language family. Boom, another 24 billion
codepoints gone. Now comes someone else who figures that 64 x 64 resolution
is good enough for representing glyphs, and wants a codepoint for each
possible glyph. That's 2^64^2, or
3154190336 more codepoints gone. We aren't going to run out of
integers, of course, but we will quickly run out of money, brains,
Or we can say that the purpose of the Unicode Standard is to encode
characters used for computer (and a fortiori computer-moderated
human) interchange of text.
> In that case, I would argue that, in order to provide a big enough
> character space for everything, IF twenty-one bits is not enough THEN we
> should use more bits.
21 bits is plenty. Not everything that *can* be fit into that space
> You could argue that that's what the private use area is for.
> I would
> argue that codepoints above 0x10FFFF could be considered as just another
> private use area ... only somewhat larger. So large, in fact, that you
> need never see a clash, ever.
Only if you are willing to deal with infinite precision integers, as
I do above.
-- Eric Raymond is the Margaret Mead John Cowan of the Open Source movement. email@example.com --Lloyd A. Conway, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan amazon.com review http://www.reutershealth.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:24 CST