From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <007b01c46dd6$89a0c420$8efa7d50@SOMA>
From: "boyd, rounin" <boyd@insultant.net>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
References: <6e35c06204071810312daa31a9@mail.gmail.com><000701c46cf6$814c4370$92ec7d50@SOMA><7359f049040718120571c93b25@mail.gmail.com>
	<1485.63.165.50.175.1090270909.squirrel@wish.cooper.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] UTF-8 criticism?
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:22:42 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c32620c0-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> Would moving to 32 bit signed (and only 0 -- 2^21 allowed, plus -1 for
> EOF) as in the more recent revisions of Unicode take care of the
> surrogates problem?

this has nothing to do with EOF.