On Nov 22, 2010, at 2:48 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Raymond Hettinger writes: > >> Neither UTF-16 nor UCS-2 is exactly correct anyway. > > From a standards lawyer point of view, UCS-2 is exactly correct,
You're twisting yourself into definitional knots. Any explanation we give users needs to let them know two things: * that we cover the entire range of unicode not just BMP * that sometimes len(chr(i)) is one and sometimes two The term UCS-2 is a complete communications failure in that regard. If someone looks up the term, they will immediately see something like the wikipedia entry which says, "UCS-2 cannot represent code points outside the BMP". How is that helpful? Raymond
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
