> From: "Doug Ewell" <d...@ewellic.org> > Cc: <unicode@unicode.org> > Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2020 13:33:18 -0600 > > > Emacs uses some of that for supporting charsets that cannot be mapped > > into Unicode. GB18030 is one example of such charsets. The internal > > representation of characters in Emacs is UTF-8, so it uses 5-byte > > UTF-8 like sequences to represent such characters. > > When 137,468 private-use characters aren't enough?
Why is that relevant to the issue at hand? > I thought the whole premise of GB18030 was that it was Unicode mapped into a > GB2312 framework. What characters exist in GB18030 that don't exist in > Unicode, and have they been proposed for Unicode yet I don't remember off hand, but last time I looked at GB18030, there were a lot of them not in Unicode. > and why was none of the PUA space considered appropriate for that in the > meantime? Because many fonts already use them? I don't really know why it was decided to use codepoints above 0x1FFFFF, it's just that this is how Emacs works for quite some time. You asked for examples of usage, and I provided one.