[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XML 1.1 grinds to halt?

• To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
• Subject: Re: XML 1.1 grinds to halt?
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:36:01 -0700
• Cc: "XML Dev" <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <020901c30e6a$49593090$4bc8a8c0@A...>
• References: <oproc7ephwezizxn@s...> <00b301c30e0f$e9912e10$4bc8a8c0@A...> <3EAE8F5A.6070205@t...> <020901c30e6a$49593090$4bc8a8c0@A...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312

Rick Jelliffe wrote:

> You are right that a Java Character is a UTF-16 code. But making
> Java Characters into 24-or 32-bit codes would still not make them
> characters in the plain English sense (which is closest to "collatable
> units"). A combining umlaut is not really a character for example;
> radicals are not ndependent characters, though they may have codepoints.
> 
> So, paradoxically, an API that handles real characters properly
> probably never has arguments or return results of Character 
> (or something that is 8, 16, 24, or 32 bits) but instead uses String 
> (and its variants).  

The point about doing strings, not characters, is well-taken, and one of 
the things in the W3C i18n draft that gave me an "aha" moment.  On the 
other hand, I think that when I say a "Unicode character", that has a 
very well-defined semantic, and COMBINING UMLAUT is one while codepoints 
from the surrogate blocks aren't, and any API that doesn't make that 
clear is, well, wrong.  Put another way, something that is a Unicode 
character in UTF-16 should also be a character in UTF-8 and UTF-32, 
which the surrogates aren't, so they are just not characters in any 
meaningful sense of the word.
-- 
Cheers, Tim Bray
         (ongoing fragmented essay: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML 1.1 grinds to halt?
    • From: "Bob Foster" <bob@x...>

• References:
  • XML 1.1 grinds to halt?
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: XML 1.1 grinds to halt?
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
  • Re: XML 1.1 grinds to halt?
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: XML 1.1 grinds to halt?
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML 1.1 grinds to halt?
• Next by Date: Re: XML 1.1 grinds to halt?
• Previous by thread: Re: XML 1.1 grinds to halt?
• Next by thread: Re: XML 1.1 grinds to halt?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread