On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Masklinn <maskl...@masklinn.net> wrote:But as Richard Carlsson points out, that's NOT quite "exactly what it is."
> On 2012-07-31, at 16:37 , Richard Carlsson wrote:
>> On 07/31/2012 04:19 PM, Michael Turner wrote:
>>> Can you go further and say that it actually *is* UTF-32? A footnote
>> I'm loath to say that it *is* UTF-32, because with that term follows a bunch of connotations such as word width and endianism, which don't apply to the representation as Erlang integers. I'd like to just refer to it as Unicode, but apparently that makes most people think it's either UTF-8 or UTF-16.
> Say it's a sequence of code points (reified as integers)? That's exactly
> ... If people don't know what a code point is, they can look itThe perfect is often the enemy of the good. Perfect precision is
> up. In any case, this shouldn't bring along any undue semantic baggage
> and misconception.
sometimes the enemy of good initial comprehension. In my experience,
that's *definitely* true of most approaches to Unicode.
I hope we haven't lost track of Joe's goal here: a reasonably accurate
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.