srivas sinnathurai <sisrivas at blueyonder dot co dot uk> wrote: > 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.
There is no evidence whatsoever that this is a problem that needs to be solved, not in 700 or 800 years, not ever. Ken's words are again being ignored. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell
