(Tony Graham) writes:
>> Unicode itself ran out of room and put in surrogates. Now it seems
>
>Yes. I don't doubt that 65,000 characters seemed like enough back in
>1988, or that a (fixed) character size larger than 16 bits would have
>been an even tougher sell back when Unicode was getting established.
>
>> that we've run out of patience and added yet another layer of
>> processing in the middle.
>
>Yet the proposal under discussion doesn't attempt naming either 65,000
>characters or 1,000,000+, so I don't see why surrogates have anything
>to do with it.
It's another level of indirection between characters and bytes. Lots of
people (who've ever encountered them, anyway) gripe that surrogates
complicate processing - and they're just a dead-simple algorithm. This
proposal makes the impact of surrogrates on the distance between bytes
and characters look trivial by comparison.
