• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: ANN: Gorille 0.3
• From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>
• Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 23:38:17 GMT
• Cc:
• In-reply-to: <3C3DF808.1020801@t...>
• Organization: HCRC, University of Edinburgh

>The nasty fact is that
>I suspect many Java application programmers will end up
>simply blowing off non-BMP text either through ignorance
>or based on a decision that it's not cost-effective.

It depends what they want to do with it.  Won't they just end up
passing it through as pairs of surrogates?

Indeed, I thought that was the argument for UTF-16 all along; as
someone not a million miles from this discussion put it:

>The processor could still pass UTF-16 to the application 
>as the 2 16-bit quantities d800, dc00, and in fact I suspect that 
>UTF-16 is probably the way to go for the interface of a generic
>processor, since it would not require that the app be prepared 
>to handle 4-byte characters.

-- Richard

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: ANN: Gorille 0.3
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• References:
  • Re: ANN: Gorille 0.3
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: ANN: Gorille 0.3
• Next by Date: RE: ANN: Gorille 0.3
• Previous by thread: Re: Unicode basics (was Re: ANN: Gorille 0.3)
• Next by thread: Re: ANN: Gorille 0.3
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread