🚀 go-pugleaf

opstad@Apple.COM (David Opstad) writes:

>In article <1992Sep4.203521.4099@adobe.com> caro@adobe.UUCP  (Perry A. Caro) writes:
>>P.S.
>>Speaking of bigger, why oh why is UNICODE 16-bit based?  Can you say
>>major byteswapping headaches?  I still think Xerox's interpreted sequence
>>of bytes, with infinitely expandable space, is the better solution.

>Actually, Unicode is a 16-bit standard, and explicitly NOT a 2-octet
>standard, specifically to avoid byteswapping problems. And I have to say,
>
 (some amusing anecdotal stuff deleted)

a *real* character encoding would be uniformly 16-bit, since computers
>were growing up and memory wasn't as dear as it used to be in the days
>of $300 for 16K for your Apple II...

Then why not go on to 32 bit? It would come a lot closer to including ALL
characters of ALL languages. (BTW does anybody know if 32 bit would suffice
or would we need still more? Assuming we only wanted to include spoken
languages, not dead ones)
I bet all my ASCII-tables in the back of every book I have that by the time
the ISO would be done with a 32 bit standard, there will be laughter at any
computer/OS with less than 64 bit.   :-) but true nonetheless.

Or is it?


     Ulrich Mayring
     volksdesign.

       - Echte Froehlichkeit kommt aus dem Herzen -