From: Doug Ewell (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Nov 02 2007 - 07:38:31 CST
John Knightley <vunzndi at vfemail dot net> wrote:
> Actually the original comments started with a discussion of the size
> of the PUA being to small.
I continue to doubt there are 137.468 abstract characters that are
neither in Unicode nor planned for a future version of Unicode, and that
need to be interchanged. I am confident there are 137.468 *glyphs* that
fit the bill.
> It's taken as read the speed unicode works at we are safe for a few
> centuires, however the point was that setting such limits in the first
> place is not he best computing pratice.
I don't think I've ever heard of a coded character set with no fixed
upper limit. Even Bytext didn't attempt that.
> The Egyptian hieroglyphs block encodes components - a good way to
> avoid having too many characters.
Han characters are generally viewed as discrete characters by their
users, and have always been coded as such in coded character sets.
There was, and continues to be, a need to convert Han characters between
Unicode and other encodings in a relatively straightforward way. I
don't think this is true for hieroglyphs.
> Agreed in the same way it took 18 years to fill up most of the BMP, it
> will take about 18 years to fill up plane one
> Which means by the time unicode gets to 40, the BMP, and planes 1, 2
> and 3 will be nearly full! palnes 15 and 16 are pua, that means 6/17
> planes in the first 40 years not bad.
An important part of Ken's point, now and every time he posts on this
topic, is that the rate of increase is slowing, not constant.
-- Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 NEW E-MAIL --> dewell at roadrunner dot com NEW URL --> http://home.roadrunner.com/~dewell http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 02 2007 - 07:40:18 CST