Re: [PATCHES] UNICODE characters above 0x10000 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tatsuo Ishii
Subject Re: [PATCHES] UNICODE characters above 0x10000
Date
Msg-id 20040807.194616.116347505.t-ishii@sra.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCHES] UNICODE characters above 0x10000  ("John Hansen" <john@geeknet.com.au>)
Responses Re: [PATCHES] UNICODE characters above 0x10000  (Dennis Bjorklund <db@zigo.dhs.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
> 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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Gaetano Mendola
Date:
Subject: Re: CVS comment
Next
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne
Date:
Subject: Re: UNICODE characters above 0x10000