Re: Code pages and Unicode

From: srivas sinnathurai <sisrivas_at_blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:42:42 +0100

The true lifting of UTF-16 would be to UTF-32.

Leave the UTF-16 un touched and make the new half versatile as possible.

I think any other solution is just a patch up for the timebeing.

Sinnathurai

On 22 August 2011 10:35, Andrew West <andrewcwest_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> On 21 August 2011 02:14, Richard Wordingham
> <richard.wordingham_at_ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:03:41 -0700
> > Ken Whistler <kenw_at_sybase.com> wrote:
> >
> >> O.k., so apparently we have awhile to go before we have to start
> >> worrying about the Y2K or IPv4 problem for Unicode. Call me again in
> >> the year 2851, and we'll still have 5 years left to design a new
> >> scheme and plan for the transition. ;-)
> >
> > It'll be much easier to extend UTF-16 if there are still enough
> > contiguous points available. Set that wake-up call for 2790, or
> > whenever plane 13 (better, plane 12) is about to come into use.
>
> Stymied by the Unicode« stability policies again:
>
> "The General_Category property values will not be further subdivided. "
> "The General_Category property value Surrogate (Cs) is immutable: the
> set of code points with that value will never change."
>
> <http://unicode.org/policies/stability_policy.html#Property_Value>
>
> Can anyone think of a way to extend UTF-16 without adding new
> surrogates or inventing a new general category?
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
Received on Mon Aug 22 2011 - 09:45:04 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Aug 22 2011 - 09:45:11 CDT