RE: [9fans] Plan 9 (in)security

["Richard Elberger" <richelbe@richelberger.com>]

I don't know if you're talking about unicode work here (I am suspecting you
are).  As you probably know, the unicode folks haven't even catalogued all
the glyphs/scripts in existence yet in unicode -- heck, Ethiopic just
recently made it in not too long ago.  Perhaps once it is all catalogued and
accepted into unicode, 16 bits will not be enough.  But if the limit in the
current implementation (0xFFFF -- has anyone heard any new developments
here) needs to be extended -- maybe this makes the system call more flexible
for the future? Don't know.
http://www.unicode.org/unicode/standard/unsupported.html
Even if obsolete, they will eventually be in unicode to record original
scripts digitally (instead of scanning and deriving some information from a
document and plugging the info in a property sheet so search) -- which imo
would be cool.

-- rich

>-----Original Message-----
>From: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu [mailto:9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu]On Behalf
>Of rob pike
>Sent: Sunday, 27 May 2001 4:27 p.m.
>To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
>Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9 (in)security
>
>
>> By the way, why on the Earth number of characters in font is
>passed as 32bit
>> value when you can set glyphs only for characters with numbers that fit
>> into 16 bits?
>
>Professional courtesy.
>
>-rob
>
>