On Nov 22, 2010, at 2:48 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Raymond Hettinger writes: > >> Neither UTF-16 nor UCS-2 is exactly correct anyway. > > From a standards lawyer point of view, UCS-2 is exactly correct, You're twisting yourself into definitional knots. Any explanation we give users needs to let them know two things: * that we cover the entire range of unicode not just BMP * that sometimes len(chr(i)) is one and sometimes two The term UCS-2 is a complete communications failure in that regard. If someone looks up the term, they will immediately see something like the wikipedia entry which says, "UCS-2 cannot represent code points outside the BMP". How is that helpful? Raymond -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20101122/262d2d5c/attachment.html>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4