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

[Antoine Leca]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> On 02/19/2001 08:05:49 PM David Starner wrote:
> 
> >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++.

Read also TUS3.0, par. 5.2 on top of page 108...
As far as I know, neither UAX-29 nor PDUTR-27 has changed these words...


That said, one can see it as a overview that ought to be corrected.
As the guy that fighted to introduce the most wide uses of ISO10646/Unicode
in C99, I will certainly welcome any change in this area!  ;-)


Antoine