Kenneth Whistler scripsit: > It was only with Unicode 3.0 (and the correlated 10646-1:2000) > that this was rationalized to the Unicode definition of > UTF-8 formally consisting of only 1-4 bytes sequences, while > simultaneously the potential need for 5 and 6-byte sequences > in 10646 was removed, because of the removal of any private > use planes past U+10FFFF in 10646.
Tell us, O Keen-Eyed Peerer Into The Future: is there any hope that the code space above 10FFFF will ever be removed from 10646, so that the "Unicode's a subset of 10646" meme can be stomped once and for all? I grow weary of explaining this pointless difference. -- "While staying with the Asonu, I met a man from John Cowan the Candensian plane, which is very much like [EMAIL PROTECTED] ours, only more of it consists of Toronto." http://:www.ccil.org/~cowan --the unnamed narrator of Le Guin's Changing Planes
