From: Mark Crispin (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Dec 27 2009 - 13:24:25 CST
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Because of the surrogate mechanism, there is no way I personally would
> consider UTF-16 to be "simpler" than UTF-32. In the best case, it is "as
> simple as" UTF-32. It has other advantages, mostly related to size, but
> simplicity over UTF-32 is not one of them.
[I couldn't resist!]
UTF-18 is both simpler than UTF-16 and has size advantages over UTF-32.
OK! OK! I'm sorry! ;)
-- Mark --
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 27 2009 - 13:27:35 CST