Re: UTF-8 nitpicking (was: RE: any unicode conversion tools?)

Date: Thu May 13 2004 - 15:46:12 CDT

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: UTF-8 nitpicking (was: RE: any unicode conversion tools?)"

    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
    ours, only more of it consists of Toronto."
            --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