Re: Code pages and Unicode (wasn't really: RE: Endangered Alphabets)

From: srivas sinnathurai <sisrivas_at_blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:40:03 +0100

Doug,

First of all flat code space is the primary functionality of Unicode and not
calling for any changes to existing encodings.

What I propose is assign about 16,000 codes to code-page switching model.

Why this suggestion?
With current flat space, one code point is only allocated to one and only
one purpose.
We can run out of code space soon.

While processing the contemporary languages and other like mathamatical sym
in flat space, the 16,000 codes in the portin that is code page switchable
will be able to support 1000ands of different characters on each of the
code.
Ie, take 16 codes. with flat space only supports 16 characters. but with
code page, can support 16 differnt purposes, each with a capacity of 14
characters. that is 140 characters instead of just 10 flat characters.
Sinnathurai
On 19 August 2011 15:27, Doug Ewell <doug_at_ewellic.org> wrote:

> srivas sinnathurai <sisrivas at blueyonder dot co dot uk> wrote:
>
> > PUA is not structured
>
> It's not supposed to be. It's a private-use area. You use it the way
> you see fit.
>
> > and not officially programmable to accommodate
> > numerous code pages.
>
> None of Unicode is designed around code-page switching. It's a flat
> code space. This is true even for ISO 10646, which nominally divides
> the space into groups and planes and rows.
>
> As a programmer, I don't understand what "not officially programmable"
> means here. I've written lots of programs that use and understand the
> PUA.
>
> > Take the ISO 8859-1, 2, 3, and so on .....
> > These are now allocating the same code points to many languages and
> > for other purposes.
>
> Character encodings don't allocate code points to languages. They
> allocate code points to characters, which are used to write text in
> languages. This is not a trivial distinction; it is crucial to
> understanding how character encodings work.
>
> > Similarly, a structured and official allocations to any many
> > requirements can be done using the same codes, say 16,000 of them.
>
> If you want to use ISO 2022, just use ISO 2022.
>
> I guess what I'm missing is why the code-page switching model is
> considered superior, in any way, to the flat code space of
> Unicode/10646.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14
> www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell
>
>
>
Received on Fri Aug 19 2011 - 10:41:00 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Aug 19 2011 - 10:41:00 CDT