Philippe stated, and I need to correct:
UTF-24 already exists as an encoding form (it is identical to UTF-32), if
you just consider that encoding forms just need to be able to represent a
valid code range within a single code unit.
This is false.
Unicode encoding forms exist by virtue of
Yes, and pigs could fly, if they had big enough wings.
An 8-foot wingspan should do it. For picture of said flying pig see:
http://www.cincinnati.com/bigpiggig/profile_091700.html
http://www.cincinnati.com/bigpiggig/images/pig091700.jpg
Rick
From: Kenneth Whistler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, and pigs could fly, if they had big enough wings.
Once again, this is a creative comment. As if Unicode had to be bound on
architectural constraints such as the requirement of representing code units
(which are architectural for a system) only as
Philippe continued:
As if Unicode had to be bound on
architectural constraints such as the requirement of representing code units
(which are architectural for a system) only as 16-bit or 32-bit units,
Yes, it does. By definition. In the standard.
ignoring the fact that technologies do
- Original Message -
From: Arcane Jill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Probably a dumb question, but how come nobody's invented UTF-24 yet? I
just made that up, it's not an official standard, but one could easily
define UTF-24 as UTF-32 with the most-significant byte (which is always
zero) removed,
5 matches
Mail list logo
