[Guido] >> Why? Because I don't want to proliferate code that explicitly traps >> 0xD800-0xDFFF throughout the code. [Bill Tutt] > Err... I don't think you have much choice in the long term. 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.
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