RE: UTF8 vs. Unicode (UTF16) in code

[Ayers, Mike]

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> 
> On 03/08/2001 07:40:25 PM "Ayers, Mike" wrote:
> 
> >    If you really want to finish the job, there's always 
> UTF-32, which
> >should do rather nicely until we meet the space aliens aith the
> >4,293,853,186 character alphabet!
> 
> Um... no. The 1,113,023 character alphabet (one more than the 
> encodable
> scalar values in the codespace supported by UTF-8 / 16 / 32).
> 

        Um... no.  The UTF-32 CES can handle much more than the current
space of the Unicode CCS.  As far as I can tell, it's good to go until we
need more than 32 bits to represent the ACR.  I'm actually surprised that
this comment was so misunderstood.  Ah, well...


/|/|ike

P.S.  If the acronyms didn't make sense, try
http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr17/