Re: Tech: Unicode (was...)

Philippe Caquant scripsit:

> Oh. Let's try to summarize.
All correct.

> - it seems that inside the ranges we mentioned before,
> some sub-ranges are never used (D8.00 to DB.FF = 1,024
> codes in every range of 65,536 codes = 1.5625%)
Only in Plane 0, not the other planes.  (1 plane = 65536 codes)

> - others will do what they like, compressing single
> bits, dividing them in two, or painting them different
> colors to differentiate them, we don't care, provided
> we get our information back correctly.
Nobody ever uses anything except UTF-8, UTF-16, and maybe
UTF-32 inside programs.  For serialization into octets,
UTF-16 has a problem: which octet first?  To solve this, we can
prefix FEFF to the text, which works because FFFE is reserved;
if we read FFFE, we need to swap octets thereafter.

--
What is the sound of Perl?  Is it not the       John Cowan
sound of a [Ww]all that people have stopped     jcowan@reutershealth.com
banging their head against?  --Larry            http://www.ccil.org/~cowan