On 05 Jun 2001 11:07:11 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >Particularly since part of his contention is that 16 bits isn't enough, >and I think all the widely used national character sets are no more than >16 bits, aren't they? It's not really important. UTF-8 is NOT limited to 16 bits (3 bytes). With 4 bytes, UTF-8 can represent 20 bit charatcers, i.e. 6 times more than the "desired number" of 170000. See <http://czyborra.com/utf/#UTF-8> for how it this is done. And the major flaw that I see in acceptance of Unicode, is that the Unicode "text" files are not Ascii compatible. UTF-8 file are. That makes for a very nice upgrade path. -- Bart.
- Should we care much about this Unicode-ish criticism? Dan Sugalski
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish crit... Russ Allbery
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish crit... Simon Cozens
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish crit... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish ... Simon Cozens
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish ... David L. Nicol
- RE: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish crit... Hong Zhang
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish crit... Russ Allbery
- RE: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish crit... Hong Zhang
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish crit... Bart Lateur
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish ... Simon Cozens
- RE: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish crit... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish crit... Russ Allbery
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish crit... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish crit... Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish crit... Simon Cozens
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish ... Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish crit... Russ Allbery
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish ... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Should we care much about this Unicode-ish ... Bryan C . Warnock