Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Surrogate space in Unicode)

[DougEwell2]

In a message dated 2001-02-20 06:18:34 Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> >With the Unicode-related functions in Prague growing out of size, I moved
>  them
>  >into a new library called 'Babylon'. It will provide all the functionality
>  >defined in the Unicode standard (it is not Unicode but ISO 10646 compliant
>  as
>  >it uses 32bit wide characters internally) and is written in C++.
>  
>  Eh? Unicode has no aversion to either a 32-bit encoding form (UTF-32 - see
>  UTR#19 or PDUTR#27) or with C++.

I believe that was David's point; he was quoting someone else who believed 
that a 32-bit representation was compliant with ISO/IEC 10646 but not with 
Unicode.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California