Re: More elegant UTF-8 encoder
- From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:23:04 -0400
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
.... snip ...
While I'll grant it's unlikely, it's indeed _possible_ that the
limit will be lifted in the future. Since UTF-8 follows a
consistent pattern up to seven octets, there's no reason not to
allow for encoding or decoding it as long as it's well-formed.
The UCS-2 folks all got burned when UTF-16 came out with its
surrogates, remember, and it didn't even take that long; I don't
plan on repeating their mistakes. Just like I never thought
640kB RAM (or 4GB) was enough for everybody and allowed for more
if/when it became possible...
Hell, back in '78 I proposed a system with the outrageous memory
addressing capacity of 24 bits, or 16 Megs. Who could possibly
need (or afford) more. It also provided for 16 bit words.
Published in DDJ.
--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
<http://kadaitcha.cx/vista/dogsbreakfast/index.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
- References:
- More elegant UTF-8 encoder
- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: More elegant UTF-8 encoder
- From: J. J. Farrell
- Re: More elegant UTF-8 encoder
- From: Stephen Sprunk
- Re: More elegant UTF-8 encoder
- From: Clark Cox
- Re: More elegant UTF-8 encoder
- From: Stephen Sprunk
- More elegant UTF-8 encoder
- Prev by Date: Re: the strange accident
- Next by Date: Re: linked list
- Previous by thread: Re: More elegant UTF-8 encoder
- Next by thread: Re: More elegant UTF-8 encoder
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
