From: Tim Greenwood (timothy.greenwood@gmail.com)
Date: Fri May 20 2005 - 12:24:52 CDT
On 5/19/05, Dean Snyder <dean.snyder@jhu.edu> wrote:
> Well that, of course, depends on how you define state, acknowledgment of
> which, I presume, is related to both your qualified dissension and your
> use of quotes around the word "state" here.
While I do not agree that your definition of state matches that
commonly accepted, it is a coherent argument. However if you make that
argument then you must address Ken's other point. You criticise the
use of 'stateful' code units in UTF-16, yet do not do the same for
UTF-8. Why not? The structure of both is very similar. In both a
Unicode character is encoded by a sequence of one of more base code
units. The only difference is that when interpreting individual code
units (from the set that require greater than one to map to a
character) as a number those from UTF8 have a corresponding Unicode
character and those from UTF-16 do not. Would you prefer that the
surrogate area had also been assigned individual characters? It would
not change the model at all, just make processing less efficient, but
on a par with UTF-8.
Tim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 20 2005 - 12:25:51 CDT