On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 00:42:54 -0700 David Starner <prosfil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Richard Wordingham > <richard.wording...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 23:21:38 -0700 > > David Starner <prosfil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Richard Wordingham > >> <richard.wording...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > >> > Using 99 = (3 + > >> > 32 + 64) PUA characters, one can ape UTF-16 surrogates and > >> > encode: > > > > The PUA is in general not available for > > general utilities to make special use of. > > No, the PUA is not. Then where are you getting the 99 PUA characters > you suggested using? By escaping them as well. The point of the complex scheme is to keep searching simple. Using a general escape character doesn't work so well. Richard. _______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
