The true lifting of UTF-16 would be to UTF-32. Leave the UTF-16 un touched and make the new half versatile as possible.
I think any other solution is just a patch up for the timebeing. Sinnathurai On 22 August 2011 10:35, Andrew West <andrewcw...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 21 August 2011 02:14, Richard Wordingham > <richard.wording...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:03:41 -0700 > > Ken Whistler <k...@sybase.com> wrote: > > > >> O.k., so apparently we have awhile to go before we have to start > >> worrying about the Y2K or IPv4 problem for Unicode. Call me again in > >> the year 2851, and we'll still have 5 years left to design a new > >> scheme and plan for the transition. ;-) > > > > It'll be much easier to extend UTF-16 if there are still enough > > contiguous points available. Set that wake-up call for 2790, or > > whenever plane 13 (better, plane 12) is about to come into use. > > Stymied by the Unicode® stability policies again: > > "The General_Category property values will not be further subdivided. " > "The General_Category property value Surrogate (Cs) is immutable: the > set of code points with that value will never change." > > <http://unicode.org/policies/stability_policy.html#Property_Value> > > Can anyone think of a way to extend UTF-16 without adding new > surrogates or inventing a new general category? > > Andrew > > >
