RE: Supporting full Unicode

RE: Supporting full Unicode

[amado.alves]

>> An ugly fact about Unicode is that the code space is 24-bit...

> Not quite right. The current code space is 32 bit of which only 24 bits are used...

You made me go for the book to see if this had changed. It has not. The codespace is 24 bit. Actually it's 21.

"In the Unicode Standard, the codespace consists of the integers from 0 to 10FFFF..."

(The Unicode Standard, Version 4.0.1, section 2.4)

RE: Supporting full Unicode

[Martin Krischik]

amado.alves wrote:

>>> An ugly fact about Unicode is that the code space is 24-bit...
> 
>> Not quite right. The current code space is 32 bit of which only 24 bits
>> are used...
> 
> You made me go for the book to see if this had changed. It has not. The
> codespace is 24 bit. Actually it's 21.
> 
> "In the Unicode Standard, the codespace consists of the integers from 0 to
> 10FFFF..."
> 
> (The Unicode Standard, Version 4.0.1, section 2.4)

If you mean the currently used code space then yes. But they extend the
codepace from time to time

With Regards

Martin

-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com

RE: Supporting full Unicode

[David Starner]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 16:34:34 +0200, Martin Krischik wrote:

> amado.alves wrote:
> 
>> 
>> You made me go for the book to see if this had changed. It has not. The
>> codespace is 24 bit. Actually it's 21.
>> 
>> "In the Unicode Standard, the codespace consists of the integers from 0 to
>> 10FFFF..."
>> 
>> (The Unicode Standard, Version 4.0.1, section 2.4)
> 
> If you mean the currently used code space then yes. But they extend the
> codepace from time to time

No, they don't. They extended it once, in the Unicode/ISO-10646 merge in
1996, as well as moving characters around. There is no plan to do either
ever again.

There's no reason to extend the code space, either. There's over a million
code points, and in a decade they've managed to fill about a hundred
thousand of them. The Unicode roadmaps <http://www.unicode.org/roadmaps/>
have space blocked out for every character they think they might want to
encode, from Rongorong to Egyptian Hieroglyphics. All of it fits in
three planes of 65,536 characters with plenty of room to spare on one of
them. It's though that Chinese character might exceed their current plane,
and need a new one. Even with two planes for Chinese, there's still only
four planes in use, plus two planes permanently dedicated to Private Use
characters, leaving 650,000+ characters with no conceivable use. Short of
extraterrestrials, there's no point in extending the code space.

Re: Supporting full Unicode

[Florian Weimer]

* Martin Krischik:

> If you mean the currently used code space then yes. But they extend the
> codepace from time to time

There's a promise from both the Unicode Consortium and the WG behind
ISO 10646-1 that they won't assign characters outside the first
seventeen planes.

-- 
Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the
following domains: atlas.cz, bigpond.com, di-ve.com, hotmail.com,
jumpy.it, libero.it, netscape.net, postino.it, simplesnet.pt,
tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it, voila.fr, yahoo.com.

[OT:fun] Re: Supporting full Unicode

[Marius Amado Alves]

[when the extraterrestrials come...]

Unicode will be renamed Earthcode, and become a part of Galacticode, a
42-bit code space managed from Vulcan, which will eventually be renamed to
Lacteacode and become a part of Clustercode. By then language is not
evolving anymore so there is a code for each word. Clustercode will finally
become a part of Unicode--this time named right. By then everything has been
said so there is a code for each sentence. At some point in this timeline
the ISO (Intergalactical Standards Organization) went out of business
because 1,000,000,000,000-page printed volumes became unpractical to ship.

Re: [OT:fun] Re: Supporting full Unicode

[Ludovic Brenta]

Yes, I long for the Babel fish.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.


-- 
Use our news server 'news.foorum.com' from anywhere.
More details at: http://nnrpinfo.go.foorum.com/

Re: [OT:fun] Re: Supporting full Unicode

[Marius Amado Alves]

> Yes, I long for the Babel fish.

Which is of course an embedded application written in Ada 100000 integrating
the Clustercode database as a Mneson graph of 300Z links stored in a quantum
chip.
>

Re: [OT:fun] Re: Supporting full Unicode

[Marius Amado Alves]

> As Isaac Asimov said, any sufficiently advanced technology is
> indistiguishable from magic.

I think it was Artur C. Clarke, but my favorite is:

Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

Re: [OT:fun] Re: Supporting full Unicode

[Robert I. Eachus]

Marius Amado Alves wrote:

> Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

Um, a few years ago, QM results started showing up that made me think 
that magic was pretty old hat.  Let's see: quantum teleportation, 
Bose-Einstein condensates, viewing without observing, the Nimtz work on 
superluminal communication, global causality violation, evaporating 
black holes, and of course, the EPR Paradox.

The funniest I thought was a paper from the Nimtz group showing that 
their work could NOT, in most circumstances, be used to build a time 
machine. (No, that dosen't imply that you can use it to make a time 
machine other circumstances.  It merely says that if you add a time 
machine to a superluminal communication device, both will still work. If 
you don't have a time machine to start with, you can't add Nimtz style 
superluminal commication and get one.)

-- 

                                           Robert I. Eachus

"The terrorist enemy holds no territory, defends no population, is 
unconstrained by rules of warfare, and respects no law of morality. Such 
an enemy cannot be deterred, contained, appeased or negotiated with. It 
can only be destroyed--and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the business 
at hand."  -- Dick Cheney

Re: [OT:fun] Re: Supporting full Unicode

[Alexander Kopilovitch]

"Robert I. Eachus" wrote:

> Um, a few years ago, QM results started showing up that made me think 
> that magic was pretty old hat.  Let's see: quantum teleportation, 
> Bose-Einstein condensates, viewing without observing, the Nimtz work on 
> superluminal communication, global causality violation, evaporating 
> black holes, and of course, the EPR Paradox.
> 
> The funniest I thought was a paper from the Nimtz group showing that 
> their work could NOT, in most circumstances, be used to build a time 
> machine. (No, that dosen't imply that you can use it to make a time 
> machine other circumstances.  It merely says that if you add a time 
> machine to a superluminal communication device, both will still work. If 
> you don't have a time machine to start with, you can't add Nimtz style 
> superluminal commication and get one.)

But they still did not discover quantum viruses. I think that this is
a neglect from their side. Or they already did and I'm just not aware of that?



Alexander Kopilovich                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
Saint-Petersburg
Russia