bug-lilypond
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: wide-char is wide

 From: Trevor Daniels Subject: Re: wide-char is wide Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:53:29 -0000

```
Robin Bannister Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:17 PM

```
```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.
```
```
As this is describing the argument to \char you are
right.  \char takes the hexadecimal number representing
the Unicode code point. So the Arabic percent can be
x66a, x066a, x00066A, ...

```
```When you criticize UTF-32 as a replacement, are you
implying that the next word "coded" is wrong too?
```
```
If we specify UTF-32 this would imply all the leading
zeros need to be expressed.  This is not required; any
valid hexadecimal representation of the integer is
acceptable.

```
```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.)
```
```
No problem with that.

```
```So lets say
```
```The following example shows Unicode code points being used
```
```
OK.  I agree "UTF-8" here is wrong.

```
```And further up, lets use this same term instead of
"Unicode escape sequence"  and  "Unicode hexadecimal code"
```
```
Happy to replace them but I prefer to use "Unicode