On 8/24/2011 10:48 AM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
> Those are two different claims. 'Never say never' is a useful maxim.
So is "Leave well enough alone."
The problem would be in using maxims instead
of an analysis of engineering requirements to drive architectural decisions.
> The extension of UCS-2, namely UTF-16, is far from optimal, but it
> could have been a lot worse - at least the surrogates are contiguous.
> All I ask is that we have a reasonable way of extending it
Why?
> if, say,
> code points are squandered.
Oh.
Well, in that case, the correct action is to work to ensure that code
points are
not squandered.
> I think, however, that<high><high><rare
> BMP code><low> offers a legitimate extension mechanism
One could argue about the description as "legitimate". It is clearly not
conformant,
and would require a decision about an architectural change to the standard.
I see no chance of that happening for either the Unicode Standard or 10646.
> that can
> actually safely be ignored when scattering code assignments about the
> 17 planes (of which only 2 are full).
A quibble (I know), but only 1 plane is arguably "full". Or, if you
count PUA, then
*3* planes are "full".
Here are the current stats for the forthcoming Unicode 6.1, counting
*designated*
code points (as opposed to assigned graphic characters).
Plane 0: 63,207 / 65,536 = 96.45% full
Plane 1: 7497 / 65,536 = 11.44% full
Plane 2: 47,626 / 65,536 = 72.67% full (plane reserved for CJK ideographs)
Plane 14: 339 / 65,536 = 0.52% full
Plane 15: 65,536 / 65,536 = 100% full (PUA)
Plane 16: 65,536 / 65,536 = 100% full (PUA)
--Ken
Received on Wed Aug 24 2011 - 14:44:01 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Aug 24 2011 - 14:44:03 CDT