On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:25:31, Deborah Goldsmith <email@hidden> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 2005, at 2:15 PM, Mike Kluev wrote:
>> I miss Unicode 1.0 (the simpler form that didn't have this
>> "an end user character may be one or more code points" (I don't
>> remember if it had the notion of "code points" at all).
>
> Unicode 1.0 *did* have "an end user character may be one or more code
> points", because Unicode has had combining marks and things like
> Indic conjuncts from the beginning. Unicode has never been a one-
> character-per-glyph encoding.
Thanks, I didn't know that. I admit, I read my copy of Unicode
Demystified only briefly and statements like "Unicode was originally
designed for a 16-bit encoding space, ... Thus the original Unicode
encoding space had room for 65,536 characters, ..." ("characters"!)
was the source of my confusion.
> You may be thinking of surrogate pairs, which were added later and
> extended the range of Unicode code points beyond 16 bits. Given that
> end user characters have always had the possibility of being more
> than one code point, supporting surrogates is pretty straightforward.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Carbon-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/carbon-dev/email@hidden
This email sent to email@hidden
