Francisco Vila. wrote: > the right googleable word is Unicode, do you agree?
Well, not fully. When I google for > unicode arabic percent I certainly end up at a relevant place http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/066a/index.htm But I am not done. I need to collect whatever it is \char needs, so I go looking for hexadecimals. There are lots of them in a nice table, and they are not all saying the same thing. This is where "UTF-32" could keep me straight. Back to NR 3.3.3 > The following example shows UTF-8 coded characters being used My main point was: UTF-8 is wrong. When you criticize UTF-32 as a replacement, are you implying that the next word "coded" is wrong too? If so, I agree. The proper term is Unicode code point (mentioned at the top of 3.3.3) and it is just an integer - no need to constrain how it is represented. (But base 16 and the codespace slicing went hand in hand.) So lets say > The following example shows Unicode code points being used And further up, lets use this same term instead of "Unicode escape sequence" and "Unicode hexadecimal code" Cheers, Robin _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
