Re: Surrogate points

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Mon Jan 31 2005 - 12:49:58 CST

  • Next message: Jon Hanna: "RE: Surrogate points"

    On 31/01/2005 18:24, Hans Aberg wrote:

    >... There is still no need of reserving the
    >"surrogate" and 0xFFFE-0xFFFF points, even in the face of the UTF-16: Just
    >put them somewhere else in a modified UTF-16. As nobody expects all the
    >UTF-16 range to be covered by Unicode character numbers with a good margin,
    >just put them somewhere where expected to be free.

    Hans, perhaps you can tell me exactly where else you will find 8 x 256
    16-bit code points which are not already allocated either as Unicode
    characters or for the existing surrogate mechanism. According to the
    Roadmap to the BMP,, the largest
    currently unallocated area is just 80 code points. I trust it is obvious
    to you why 16-bit code points are required.

    > ...
    >The problem is that repliers do not want a change, not that a change cannot
    >be made. At the same time, the character set of Unicode is so complicated
    >that a successor will have to be developed eventually. It is in dire need of
    >all help it can get in order to be straightened out and simplified. ...

    There is in fact no problem at all! Except that 8 x 256 code points had
    to be reserved, but there are plenty of code points.

    >... All you
    >are saying is that this is not going to happen within the scope of the
    >Unicode consortium, but someone else, more qualified, should do it.
    All I am saying is that there is no problem with UTF-16, no need to
    replace it, no desire for a change (as you note yourself), and no chance
    that there will be a change - as long as there is a need for a 16-bit
    encoding, which may not be for ever.

    In theory of course there are plenty of alternative 16-bit encodings.
    You can play around with them as much as you like, and even use them in
    communication with your friends. But making any change without the
    agreement of the UTC is even more pointless than getting them to agree,
    as it fails to achieve the only slight advantage which would be gained
    by the change, the availability of 8 x 256 more code points.

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)
    No virus found in this outgoing message.
    Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
    Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.6 - Release Date: 27/01/2005

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 31 2005 - 14:09:34 CST