Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Tony.Graham@S... (Tony Graham) writes: >> Unicode itself ran out of room and put in surrogates. Now it seems > >Yes. I don't doubt that 65,000 characters seemed like enough back in >1988, or that a (fixed) character size larger than 16 bits would have >been an even tougher sell back when Unicode was getting established. > >> that we've run out of patience and added yet another layer of >> processing in the middle. > >Yet the proposal under discussion doesn't attempt naming either 65,000 >characters or 1,000,000+, so I don't see why surrogates have anything >to do with it. It's another level of indirection between characters and bytes. Lots of people (who've ever encountered them, anyway) gripe that surrogates complicate processing - and they're just a dead-simple algorithm. This proposal makes the impact of surrogrates on the distance between bytes and characters look trivial by comparison.
|
