From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:32:51 +0000
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net>
Message-ID: <Leudne7FTasTVmHdRVn-gQ@comcast.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <7359f049040718120571c93b25@mail.gmail.com>,
	<1485.63.165.50.175.1090270909.squirrel@wish.cooper.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] UTF-8 criticism?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c375d0a2-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Joel Salomon wrote:
> 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?

Sure.  Actually it's not "more recent", as that's the
original ISO-10646 code points, predating Unicode.