RE: UTF-24

2003-04-04 Thread Carl W. Brown
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

Re: UTF-24

2003-04-03 Thread Doug Ewell
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

Re: UTF-24

2003-04-03 Thread David Starner
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

Re: UTF-24

2003-04-03 Thread Markus Scherer
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