[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: wide-char is wide
From: |
Robin Bannister |
Subject: |
Re: wide-char is wide |
Date: |
Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:17:31 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) |
Francisco Vila. wrote:
> the right googleable word is Unicode, do you agree?
Well, not fully.
When I google for > unicode arabic percent
I certainly end up at a relevant place
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/066a/index.htm
But I am not done.
I need to collect whatever it is \char needs,
so I go looking for hexadecimals.
There are lots of them in a nice table,
and they are not all saying the same thing.
This is where "UTF-32" could keep me straight.
Back to NR 3.3.3
> The following example shows UTF-8 coded characters being used
My main point was: UTF-8 is wrong.
When you criticize UTF-32 as a replacement, are you
implying that the next word "coded" is wrong too?
If so, I agree.
The proper term is Unicode code point (mentioned at the top of 3.3.3)
and it is just an integer - no need to constrain how it is represented.
(But base 16 and the codespace slicing went hand in hand.)
So lets say
> The following example shows Unicode code points being used
And further up, lets use this same term instead of
"Unicode escape sequence" and "Unicode hexadecimal code"
Cheers,
Robin
- Re: wide-char is wide, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: wide-char is wide, Francisco Vila, 2009/03/25
- Re: wide-char is wide, Hans Aberg, 2009/03/25
- Re: wide-char is wide, Francisco Vila, 2009/03/25
- Re: wide-char is wide, Hans Aberg, 2009/03/25
- Re: wide-char is wide, Trevor Daniels, 2009/03/25
- Re: wide-char is wide, Hans Aberg, 2009/03/26
- Re: wide-char is wide, Trevor Daniels, 2009/03/26
Re: wide-char is wide, Trevor Daniels, 2009/03/25
Re: wide-char is wide,
Robin Bannister <=
Re: wide-char is wide, Robin Bannister, 2009/03/25
Re: wide-char is wide, Robin Bannister, 2009/03/26