> From: Tim Peters [mailto:tim_one@email.msn.com] > When the Unicode push started, it was agreed that we would ignore surrogates > "for now". I sounded a caution then that I will repeat: the Unicode folks > made a bad engineering decision, based on the (Eurocentric) assumption that > 64K was a large enough space to meet their stated goals. Don't know how > long it will take this half of the world to realize it, but UCS-4 is > inevitable. On new systems perhaps, but important existing systems (Win32, and probably Java) are stuck with that bad decision and have to use UTF-16 for backward compatability purposes. Surrogates aren't as far out as you might think. (The next rev of the Unicode spec) That's certainly sooner than Win32 going away. :) Bill
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