In a message dated 2001-10-31 15:54:34 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Has any one done worst case scenarios on SCSU, with respect to other
methods of encoding Unicode characters?
In addition to theoretical worst-case scenarios, it might also be worthwhile
to consider
David Starner wrote:
Has any one done worst case scenarios on SCSU, with respect to other
methods of encoding Unicode characters?
As current Czar of Names Rectification, I must start protesting
here. SCSU is a means of *compressing* Unicode text. It is
not [an]other method of encoding Unicode
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 05:04:44PM -0800, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
And before going on, I'm not clear exactly what you are
trying to do. SCSU is defined on UTF-16 text.
Why do you say that? I can't find the phrase UTF-16 in UTS-6. It's
says that it's a compression scheme for Unicode and that
David Starner wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 05:04:44PM -0800, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
And before going on, I'm not clear exactly what you are
trying to do. SCSU is defined on UTF-16 text.
Why do you say that? I can't find the phrase UTF-16 in UTS-6.
UTS #6 is a very early Unicode
It must be a full moon on Halloween, because here I am in the extremely
unfamiliar position of disagreeing quite strongly with Ken Whistler.
In a message dated 2001-10-31 17:16:25 Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
As current Czar of Names Rectification, I must start
At 05:50 PM 10/31/01 -0800, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
I have no quarrel with the claim that the SCSU scheme could be
implemented directly on UTF-32 data. But as Unicode Technical Standard
#6 is currently written, that is not how to do it conformantly.
Actually, no specific encoding form is
6 matches
Mail list logo
