- Original Message -
From: "Peter Constable" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 15:15
Subject: Re: Unicode points
> From: Bruce Lilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I apologize for not being sufficiently clear.
But part of the issue appears to be one
On Feb 24, 2005, at 2:53 PM, Bruce Lilly wrote:
o 16-bit Unicode matched well with 16-bit wchar_t
wchar_t is 32 bits on all the computers near me. This is one reason
why UTF-16 is irritating for the C programmer.
o while the raw data size doubles in going from 16 bits per character
to 32 bits,
> From: Bruce Lilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I apologize for not being sufficiently clear.
But part of the issue appears to be one of being sufficiently informed.
> Given the flip-flop on musical notation, I expect that the consortium
> will have no trouble finding other non-text things to encode
> Date: 2005-02-21 17:48
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> --On mandag, februar 21, 2005 13:20:54 -0500 Bruce Lilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Unicode code size increased overnight by more than 4
> > orders of magnitude (a factor of 65536) when it went from 16 bits
--On mandag, februar 21, 2005 13:20:54 -0500 Bruce Lilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Unicode code size increased overnight by more than 4
orders of magnitude (a factor of 65536) when it went from 16 bits
65536 code points) to 32 bits (over 4 billion code points) at the
same time that it incorpora
