You seem to be implying that Viranga's question was:
"Can one encode all Unicode code points using EUC?"
That is a strange interpretation of:
"Is it ok for Unicode code points to be encoded/serialized
using EUC?"
Furthermore, Viranga's context appears to be XML, in which
case it *is* possible to encode *all* Unicode code points
using EUC (or ISO-8859-1 or ASCII or ...)
Misha
On 30/08/2001 15:44:55 Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> Misha Wolf wrote:
> > IMO, I correctly replied to Viranga's question and I've
> > no idea what you're talking about below.
>
> Viranga's short question was: "Is it ok for Unicode code points to be
> encoded/serialized using EUC?"
>
> My (Marco's) short answer was: "EUC size simply doesn't fit Unicode."
>
> Your (Misha's) short answer was: "Yes, it is OK for Unicode code points to
> be encoded using EUC."
>
> If we are all talking about the same Unicode and the same EUC, and we all
> use the same logic, then your short reply is plain wrong.
>
> If we are talking about different Unicodes or different EUC's, or we use
> different models of logic thought, then sorry for the misunderstanding.
>
> For the sake of precision, I will define my terms and logic:
>
> - My "Unicode" is an encoding standard described in
> <http://www.unicode.org>, which encompasses about 1,000,000 codes.
>
> - My "EUC" is an encoding scheme described in
> <http://czyborra.com/utf/#EUC>, which allows about 8,000 codes.
>
> - In my logic, one million things cannot be identified by eight thousands
> numbers.
>
> Regards.
> _ Marco
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.
