From: Asmus Freytag (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 09 2009 - 18:04:26 CST
I know we are all trying to save a few bits here, and I'm all for
trimming what you are replying to.
However, in a sprawling discussion like this it would be nice if you
were to take a moment to indicate who you are responding to.
On 1/9/2009 2:30 PM, Michael D'Errico wrote:
>>> I've thought about this. But since you would want to intermix text
>>> and non-text, it makes sense to retain Unicode as a subset and use
>>> the same UTF encoding schemes. The problem, though, is that Unicode
>>> claims all the code points, so a new standard would have to violate
>>> the rules, either by using planes that Unicode will probably never
>>> use(*), or by going beyond plane 16 (which is impossible with UTF-16
>>> and specifically disallowed for UTF-8 and UTF-32 conformance).
>> So you got back to the original problem, and just realized that
>> Unicode cannot save the world, and you just can't use one single
>> encoding to represent any kind of data, since different data requires
>> different binary representation based on its characteristics, at least
>> if our goal is efficiency.
> No, I didn't realize that. ... Again, I'm not going to hold my breath.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 09 2009 - 18:05:44 CST