From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Jun 04 2002 - 14:11:59 CDT
In <Pine.BSI.3.91.1020603204740.9152A-100000@spsystems.net> Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net> writes:
>>
>> 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.
Yes, that is my understanding. But ISO 10646 still includes the
possibility of 32-bit codes in the official definition of UTF-8 (and also
in the upcoming RFC2279bis), so it is best that our draft follows it
exactly. Of course, pigs will fly before anyone actually wants to use it.
We have also, I think, come to an arrangement with the nntp-ext people to
use the same (or rather an equivalent) syntax for the UTF-8 stuff.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5