From: Henry Spencer (henry@spsystems.net)
Date: Mon Jun 03 2002 - 19:52:54 CDT
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Marc Mutz wrote:
> > I chose to mention ISO 10646 because AIUI that still pays lip service
> > to the possibility of 32 bit codes, whereas the Unicode people seem
> > to have gone quite away from them.
> > Practically speaking, of course, they are dead...
>
> Umm? I don't think that surrogates were invented without reason for
> UTF-16 and the BMP is becoming full already...
I believe the distinction being referred to is not 16 vs 32, but 20 vs 32.
The (insert sound of retching here) surrogates stretch the Unicode code
space to (roughly speaking) 20 bits, not 32.
My understanding is that even the ISO side of the house has now come down
quite firmly against ever populating any of the 10646 code space beyond
there, but 10646 does not actually say that out loud.
Henry Spencer
henry@spsystems.net