Re: UTF-16 inside UTF-8

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Wed Nov 05 2003 - 16:55:09 EST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: UTF-16 inside UTF-8"

    Frank Yung-Fong Tang <YTang0648 at aol dot com> wrote:

    > The other reason, is untill recently in Unicode 3.1 and 3.2. There are
    > no characters defined beyond BMP.

    Unicode 3.1 came out 2½ years ago, in May 2001. That's no longer an

    > Even as today, while there many
    > characters defined beyond the BMP in unicode 4.0, the software vendor
    > may not care about those market which need those characters any way.
    > In that case, the priority to support those are pretty low.
    > ...
    > If you think Surrogate support is very important. Then IUC25 is a good
    > chance for you to talk to "goverment" people. Maybe you should suggest
    > them to put surrogate support into a law as what China did in 2000.
    > (not really, they only require GB18030 support, but that "imply"
    > Surrogate.)

    I don't know about the relative market needs. I think supplementary
    character support is important because these characters are part of
    Unicode just as much as BMP characters are, and implementing UTF-8
    support for the entire Unicode code space is about 0.1% harder than
    artificially crippling it by restricting it to the BMP.

    -Doug Ewell
     Fullerton, California

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 05 2003 - 17:39:09 EST