From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <1485.63.165.50.175.1090270909.squirrel@wish.cooper.edu>
In-Reply-To: <7359f049040718120571c93b25@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6e35c06204071810312daa31a9@mail.gmail.com><000701c46cf6$814c4370$92ec7d50@SOMA>
	<7359f049040718120571c93b25@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:01:49 -0400
Subject: Re: [9fans] UTF-8 criticism?
From: "Joel Salomon" <salomo3@cooper.edu>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c320a8d4-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

>> that's not the real problem.  it's implementing the collation
>> sequences.  the internal representation as 16 bit unsigneds
>> is not a problem.
>
> actually it is, now that surrogates are well-established.
>
> -rob
>

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?

--Joel

p.s.

>>> surrogates?
>>
>> Yeah, that is what happens when people settle on
>> too small a code space.
>
> The Klingon Language Institute probably agrees.  Far out man!
>

And I want native tengwar support... Go Geeks!!