From: Philippe Verdy (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 23 2004 - 08:12:22 EST
From: "Jon Hanna" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Quoting Marco Cimarosti <email@example.com>:
> > Jon Hanna wrote:
> > > I refuse to rename my UTF-81920!
> > Doug, Shlomi, there's a new one out there!
> > Jon, would you mind describing it?
> There are two different UTF-81920s (the resultant ambiguity is very much
> spirit of UTF-81920).
I can't find any reference document about "UTF-81920" in Google.
All I can find is documents describing "UTF-8" which encodes 128 characters
on 1 byte, and 1920 characters on 2 bytes.
Does it mean that UTF-81920 is a restriction of UTF-8 to the range
[U+0000..U+007FF] which can be encoded with at most 2 bytes with UTF-8?
UTF-81920 would then effectively not be a Unicode-compatible encoding scheme
as it would be restricted to only Latin, Greek, Coptic, Cyrillic, Armenian,
Hebrew and Arabic with their diacritics, excluding all Asian scripts,
surrogates, and compatibility characters, Arabic/Hebrew extension, common
ligatures like "fi" and presentation forms, as well as currency signs (such
as the Euro symbol coded at U+20AC), technical symbols, and even the BOM
U+FEFF? This encoding does not seem suitable to even represent successfully
the legacy DOS/OEM codepages, or the legacy PostScript and Mac charsets.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 23 2004 - 09:47:54 EST