On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:02:42 -0700 "Doug Ewell" <[email protected]> wrote:
> But some people seem to be dead serious about the need to go beyond > 1.1 million code points, and are making dead-serious arguments that > we need to plan for it. Those are two different claims. 'Never say never' is a useful maxim. The extension of UCS-2, namely UTF-16, is far from optimal, but it could have been a lot worse - at least the surrogates are contiguous. All I ask is that we have a reasonable way of extending it if, say, code points are squandered. I think, however, that <high><high><rare BMP code><low> offers a legitimate extension mechanism that can actually safely be ignored when scattering code assignments about the 17 planes (of which only 2 are full). Perhaps it is just as well we will never need a CJK character for every surname. It seems that we can safely accommodate CJK language tags. Richard.
