RE: UTF8 vs. Unicode (UTF16) in code

[Yves Arrouye]

> > 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...

Since the U in UTF stands for Unicode, UTF-32 cannot represent more than
what Unicode encodes, which is is 1+ million code points. Otherwise, you're
talking about UCS-4. But I 
thought that one of the latest revs of ISO 10646 explicitely specified that
UCS-4 will never encode more than what Unicode can encode, and thus
definitely these 4 billion characters you're alluding to.

YA