• To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@t...>
• Subject: Re: XML 1.1 grinds to halt?
• From: "Bob Foster" <bob@x...>
• Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 13:56:50 -0500
• Cc: "XML Dev" <xml-dev@l...>
• References: <oproc7ephwezizxn@s...> <00b301c30e0f$e9912e10$4bc8a8c0@A...> <3EAE8F5A.6070205@t...> <020901c30e6a$49593090$4bc8a8c0@A...> <3EAEA9F1.9040100@t...> <174301c30e77$e2d1e750$1401a8c0@snobird> <3EAEC30D.3060102@t...>

From: "Tim Bray" <tbray@t...>
> The 'aha' moment was the point that it's safer to use strings rather
> than characters as the primitives of your API, because what to a human
> may look like a single character may be a composition of several unicode
> characters, which looks like a string to the program.

But then aren't you are representing glyphs, not characters?

> > Do you mean to say that use of UTF-16 character encoding in a
programming
> > language is broken as designed? In the perfect language of your own
design,
> > would you have the "char" type be 32 bits? Is that what this is all
about?
>
> I'm in the middle of a series of essays on this over at 'ongoing'
>Cheers, Tim Bray
>         (ongoing fragmented essay: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/)

Yes, the essay is not at all controversial. ;-}

Bob

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: XML 1.1 grinds to halt?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• 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...>
  • Re: XML 1.1 grinds to halt?
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: XML 1.1 grinds to halt?
    • From: "Bob Foster" <bob@x...>
  • Re: XML 1.1 grinds to halt?
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• 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