From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2010-11-25T20:56:01+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby 1.8 vs 1.9

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Phillip Gawlowski
<cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Robert Klemme
> <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This may be true for the western world but I believe I remember one of
>> our Japanese friends state that Unicode does not cover all Asian
>> character sets completely; it could have been a remark about Java's
>> implementation of Unicode though, I am not 100% sure.
>
> Since UTF-8 is a subset of UTF-16, which in turn is a subset of
> UTF-32,

I tried to find more precise statement about this but did not really
succeed.  I thought all UTF-x were just different encoding forms of
the same universe of code points.

> and Unicode is future-proofed

Oh, so then ISO committee actually has a time machine?  Wow! ;-)

> (at least, ISO learned from the
> mess created in the 1950s to 1960s) so that new glyphs won't ever
> collide with existing glyphs, my point still stands. ;)

Well, I support your point anyway.  That was just meant as a caveat so
people are watchful (and test rather than believe). :-)  But as I
think about it it more likely was a statement about Java's
implementation (because a char has only 16 bits which is not
sufficient for all Unicode code points).

Kind regards

robert

-- 
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/