Re: Level of Unicode support required for various languages

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Wed Oct 31 2007 - 23:20:09 CST

  • Next message: "Re: Encoding Personal Use Ideographs (was Re: Level of Unicode support required for various languages)"

    <vunzndi at vfemail dot net> wrote:

    >>> There are advatages to utf-8
    >> And many many more advantages to not breaking working code.
    > And even more to making code hard to break, Y2K, et al.

    The 17-plane limit was determined on the basis that the scope of
    10646/Unicode, to encode abstract text characters rather than specific
    instances of glyphs, would safely fit within such a limit. To this
    date, this has not been proven false.

    Code that uses UTF-16, SCSU, or other encoding forms that assume the
    17-plane limit are not broken, or break-prone, in the same sense as code
    written under the assumption it would be replaced or upgraded before the
    turn of the century.

    Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
    NEW E-MAIL -->  dewell at roadrunner dot com
    NEW URL -->  ˆ

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 31 2007 - 23:21:38 CST