On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:02:57 -0500, John Gilmore wrote: >Charles > >I do not think you read my post at all carefully. > >I made it clear that for specific language pairs UTF-8 is adequate if >often clumsy. > >For multiple-language environments it is equally clear that it is inadequate. > >It is of course true that any grapheme, even say some company's logo >or an astrological house, can be represented in UTF-8. The problem is >not one of representability but of subset choice. The decision to >include one may preclude the inclusion of another. Some subsets of at >most 256 characters are adequate to some particular tasks and others >are adequate to other particular tasks. None is adequate to all such >tasks. > Do you accept that:
o UTF-8 is a variable length encoding scheme? o UTF-8 has representations for all the million plus Unicode characters? o The UTF-8 representation of any character is invariant with respect to any choice of "specific language [pairs]"? Given these premises (which I accept) it does not occur that '[t]he decision to include one [grapheme] may preclude the inclusion of another." There is no "problem [...] of subset choice." -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
