Date: Thu May 13 2004 - 15:46:12 CDT
Kenneth Whistler scripsit:
> It was only with Unicode 3.0 (and the correlated 10646-1:2000)
> that this was rationalized to the Unicode definition of
> UTF-8 formally consisting of only 1-4 bytes sequences, while
> simultaneously the potential need for 5 and 6-byte sequences
> in 10646 was removed, because of the removal of any private
> use planes past U+10FFFF in 10646.
Tell us, O Keen-Eyed Peerer Into The Future: is there any hope that
the code space above 10FFFF will ever be removed from 10646, so that
the "Unicode's a subset of 10646" meme can be stomped once and for
all? I grow weary of explaining this pointless difference.
-- "While staying with the Asonu, I met a man from John Cowan the Candensian plane, which is very much like firstname.lastname@example.org ours, only more of it consists of Toronto." http://:www.ccil.org/~cowan --the unnamed narrator of Le Guin's Changing Planes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 13 2004 - 15:46:51 CDT