From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Wed Feb 02 2005 - 12:31:52 CST
On 02/02/2005 17:57, Hans Aberg wrote:
>...
>
>So, it does not matter, from this theoretical point of view, how the Unicode
>characters are assigned to non-negative integers. ...
>
If it doesn't mattter, why don't we just stick with the current mapping
of abstract characters to code points? After all, it really doesn't
matter that a small range (the surrogate range) has been arbitrarily
excluded.
>... From the practical point
>of view, it might make implementation of programs easier if these numbers
>are held together. But it might also help implementation to have the
>character numbers being logically groups, so that common character classes
>can easily be identified as say a small number of intervals. ...
>
The current mapping seems to meet these requirements reasonably well, if
not perfectly. And it would be very hard to get general agreement on
anything better, even if we were to start with a clean sheet.
Since nothing that matters is broken, why are you so obsessed with
trying to fix it?
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/ -- 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 : Wed Feb 02 2005 - 12:39:03 CST