> > Since most Unicode characters have a value that's less than 0xFFFF,
> > most characters will only require two bytes to encode.
> but you're just repeating Chris:-)

> The XML definition of character does not rely on unicode having assigned
> a name to the slot, and I reckon there are more numbers less than 10FFFF 
> which are greater then FFFF than less than FFFF, so I win:-)

You're right, of course--there are (potentially) more characters above
0xFFFF than below it. I guess I meant to say that virtually all (in other
words, most) of the characters that we actually use in our documents have
values that are less than 0xFFFF. 

In fact, I think it's safe to say that I've personally never (intentionally,
at least) generated a document that contained a character above 0xFFFF. I
doubt if I've even strayed above 255 (but then I don't get out much. :-)

Jason.

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list