Doug,
> Most likely because no modern computer uses a 3-byte (24-bit) internal
> processing unit, and because it would be false economy for real-world
> Unicode text (see (1) and (2) above).
What would be worse is to have an implementation like the old IBM 360 computers where
the 24 bit addresse
Pim Blokland wrote:
> Why is there no UTF-24?
>
> See, these MathText characters take up a lot of space. No matter how
> you encode them; UTF-8, UTF-16 or UTF-32; they always are 4 bytes
> long. Now if we had UTF-24, they would only take up 3 bytes.
Yes, but supplementary characters will normall
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 09:05:23PM +0200, Pim Blokland wrote:
> Why is there no UTF-24?
Why? UTF-24 will almost invariably be larger then UTF-16, unless you are
talking a document in Old Italic or Gothic. The math alphanumberic
characters will almost always be combined with enough ASCII to make
UT
Pim Blokland wrote:
Why is there no UTF-24?
Well, I once proposed UTF-20...
See, these MathText characters take up a lot of space. No matter how
you encode them; UTF-8, UTF-16 or UTF-32; they always are 4 bytes
long.
True for them alone, in those UTFs. Short of defining another Unicode encoding, t
4 matches
Mail list logo