On 2/19/12 at 21:45, al...@wirfs-brock.com (Allen Wirfs-Brock) wrote:
I really don't think any Unicode semantics should be build into
the basic string representation. We need to decide on a max
element size and Unicode motivates 21 bits, but it could be
32-bits. Personally, I've lived through enough address space
exhaustion episodes in my career be skeptical of "small" values
like 2^21 being good enough for the long term.
Can we future-proof any limit an implementation may chose by
saying that all characters whose code point is too large for a
particular implementation must be replaced by an "invalid
character" code point (which fits into the implementation's
representation size) on input? An implementation which chooses
21 bits as the size will become obsolete when Unicode characters
that need 22 bits are defined. However it will still work with
characters that fit in 21 bits, and will do something rational
with ones that do not. Users who need characters in the over 21
bit set will be encouraged to upgrade.
Cheers - Bill
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz | If the site is supported by | Periwinkle
(408)356-8506 | ads, you are the product. | 16345
Englewood Ave
www.pwpconsult.com | | Los Gatos,
CA 95032
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
