[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 

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" 


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]