RE: lua for unicode

[james@...]

FYI - The Unicode Standard is not controlled by Micorosft:
http://www.unicode.org/unicode/consortium/memblogo.html

On UTF8, I'd say making Lua independent of any encoding standard 
is a better approach if possible. Leave it to the user to decide 
the standard.  Any place a string comparison is done, pipe that 
out to the application hosting Lua so the treatment comes out 
right based on the text encoding.

Regards,
Jim




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lua-l@tecgraf.puc-rio.br 
> [mailto:owner-lua-l@tecgraf.puc-rio.br] On Behalf Of Björn De Meyer
> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 1:14 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Re: lua for unicode
> 
> 
> > Initially Unicode was limited to 2^16 positions (65,536), 
> but this was found
> > to be inadequate. The first 2^16 characters of Unicode are 
> known as the Basic
> > Multilingual Plane (BMP) and is intended be enough to 
> represent all living
> > languages, however as other messages have suggested it does 
> not contain
> > historical characters. This space is not yet full so there 
> may be further
> > characters added in the future.
> 
> Here I go nitpicking again, but it also lacks characters used 
> in names,  contemporary uncommonly used characters, and 
> variants of the original. I find it amazing that this space it not yet
> full, as it should already have been filled with those 80000 
> characters
> I mentioned before alone. I still get the feeling that Microsoft 
> wants to keep using it's obsolete 16-bit encoding (wich is AFAIK not 
> UTF-16), and therefore is holding back many characters. Then again, 
> I might be a raving madman. ^_^
> 
> Anyway, as far as lua is concerned, I am convinced that UTF-8 
> is the way 
> to go. That way, backwards compatibility and internationalisation 
> of strings can go hand in hand. 
> 
> 
> -- 
> "No one knows true heroes, for they speak not of their greatness." -- 
> Daniel Remar.
> Björn De Meyer 
> bjorn.demeyer@pandora.be
> 
> 
>