| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au |
| Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] UNICODE characters above 0x10000 |
| Date: | 2004-08-07 10:46:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20040807.194616.116347505.t-ishii@sra.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> Yes, but the specification allows for 6byte sequences, or 32bit
> characters.
UTF-8 is just an encoding specification, not character set
specification. Unicode only has 17 256x256 planes in its
specification.
> As dennis pointed out, just because they're not used, doesn't mean we
> should not allow them to be stored, since there might me someone using
> the high ranges for a private character set, which could very well be
> included in the specification some day.
We should expand it to 64-bit since some day the specification might
be changed then:-)
More seriously, Unicode is filled with tons of confusion and
inconsistency IMO. Remember that once Unicode adovocates said that the
merit of Unicode was it only requires 16-bit width. Now they say they
need surrogate pairs and 32-bit width chars...
Anyway my point is if current specification of Unicode only allows
24-bit range, why we need to allow usage against the specification?
--
Tatsuo Ishii
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-08-07 10:47:07 | Re: UNICODE characters above 0x10000 |
| Previous Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2004-08-07 10:41:13 | Re: Vacuum Cost Documentation? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-08-07 10:47:07 | Re: UNICODE characters above 0x10000 |
| Previous Message | John Hansen | 2004-08-07 10:11:27 | Re: [PATCHES] UNICODE characters above 0x10000 |