• From: "James Tauber" <jtauber@j...>
• To: <xml-dev@i...>, "Tim Bray" <tbray@t...>
• Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 19:50:02 -0500

> At 06:04 AM 11/17/99 -0500, James Tauber wrote:
> >UTF-16, however, only gives access to the equivalent of Unicode with the
> >surrogate extension mechanism, ie the first 17 planes of the UCS.
>
> Right, a mere million extra characters in excess of what we're using now.
>
> This feels like a pretty low-risk option to me.

Oh, I agree. I wrote to Steinar privately saying that there is no
*practical* difference in coverage. I was just being picky.

James



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • Re: UTF-8 vs UTF-16...? (Was: Feeling good about SML)
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Grafting DOM on a C++ XML parser?
• Next by Date: RE: Parser compliance
• Previous by thread: Re: UTF-8 vs UTF-16...? (Was: Feeling good about SML)
• Next by thread: Re: UTF-8 vs UTF-16...? (Was: Feeling good about SML)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread