Re: explicit 20 bit Unicode range limit

From: Michael Everson ([email protected])
Date: Wed Jan 27 1999 - 10:49:11 EST

Next message: John Jenkins: "Re: Myanmar (Burmese) [accepted for future inclusion]"
Previous message: [email protected]: "Re: explicit 20 bit Unicode range limit"
Maybe in reply to: Michael Everson: "Re: explicit 20 bit Unicode range limit"
Next in thread: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: explicit 20 bit Unicode range limit"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

I guess that simplistically, Unicode is a 16-bit standard with some ways to
expand that, and 10646 is a 32-bit standard. If you are going to go away
from the ways which Unicode employs to expand its 16-bitness, why not just
go the whole hog and exploit 10646 to the fullest? Eventually (a hundred
years from now maybe) that's what people will do.

--
Michael Everson, Everson Gunn Teoranta ** http://www.indigo.ie/egt
15 Port Chaeimhghein �ochtarach; Baile �tha Cliath 2; �ire/Ireland
Guth�n: +353 1 478-2597 ** Facsa: +353 1 478-2597 (by arrangement)
27 P�irc an Fh�ithlinn;  Baile an Bh�thair;  Co. �tha Cliath; �ire

Next message: John Jenkins: "Re: Myanmar (Burmese) [accepted for future inclusion]"
Previous message: [email protected]: "Re: explicit 20 bit Unicode range limit"
Maybe in reply to: Michael Everson: "Re: explicit 20 bit Unicode range limit"
Next in thread: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: explicit 20 bit Unicode range limit"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:44 EDT