RE: Comments on draft-yergeau-rfc2279bis-00.txt

[Mark Davis <mark.davis@us.ibm.com>]

The other alternative is "non-surrogate code points", which is also 0000..D7FF, E000..10FFFF (and which I find clearer than 'scalar value'. However, I agree with Ken that 0..10FFFF is the simplest.

Mark
___
mark.davis@us.ibm.com
IBM, MS 50-2/B11, 5600 Cottle Rd, SJ CA 95193
(408) 256-3148
fax: (408) 256-0799

Kenneth Whistler <kenw@sybase.com>

Kenneth Whistler <kenw@sybase.com> 2002.04.22 10:19

To: phoffman@imc.org cc: ietf-charsets@iana.org Subject: RE: Comments on draft-yergeau-rfc2279bis-00.txt

Paul,

> At 10:17 PM -0400 4/21/02, Francois Yergeau wrote:
> >What about "the UTF-16 accessible repertoire"?
> 
> In the standard for UTF-8? Yuck.
> 
> It would be nice of the Unicode Consortium would come up with a 
> snappy name for it.

Well, I don't know whether you'd consider it a "snappy" name,
but that is the "Unicode scalar value": 0000..D7FF, E000..10FFFF.

I'd be in favor of just referring to the range of code points
0000..10FFFF, without further deep-ending.

And I don't like any application of the term "repertoire" here,
because that has an orthogonal application to the repertoire of
abstract characters encoded. Thus the "repertoire" for Unicode
changes with each extension for a new version. The range of
accessible code points, however, does not, and constitutes an
architectural constant.

--Ken