From: "Jon Hanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Quoting Marco Cimarosti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Jon Hanna wrote: > > > I refuse to rename my UTF-81920! > > > > Doug, Shlomi, there's a new one out there! > > Jon, would you mind describing it? > > There are two different UTF-81920s (the resultant ambiguity is very much in the > spirit of UTF-81920).
I can't find any reference document about "UTF-81920" in Google. All I can find is documents describing "UTF-8" which encodes 128 characters on 1 byte, and 1920 characters on 2 bytes. Does it mean that UTF-81920 is a restriction of UTF-8 to the range [U+0000..U+007FF] which can be encoded with at most 2 bytes with UTF-8? UTF-81920 would then effectively not be a Unicode-compatible encoding scheme as it would be restricted to only Latin, Greek, Coptic, Cyrillic, Armenian, Hebrew and Arabic with their diacritics, excluding all Asian scripts, surrogates, and compatibility characters, Arabic/Hebrew extension, common ligatures like "fi" and presentation forms, as well as currency signs (such as the Euro symbol coded at U+20AC), technical symbols, and even the BOM U+FEFF? This encoding does not seem suitable to even represent successfully the legacy DOS/OEM codepages, or the legacy PostScript and Mac charsets.
