On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Takehiko Abe wrote:

It looked like you sent the last mail only to me and not the list. I 
assume it was a misstake and I send the reply to both.

> > Is there a specific reason you want to restrict it to 24 bits?
> 
> ISO 10646 is said to have removed its private use codepoints outside of
> the Unicode 0 - 10FFFF range to ensure the compatibility with Unicode.
> 
> see Section C.2 and C.3 of Unicode 4.0 Appendix C "Relationship to ISO
> 10646": <http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/appC.pdf>.

The one and only reason for allowing 31 bit is that it's defined by iso
10646. In practice there is probably no one that uses the upper part of
10646 so not supporting it will most likely not hurt anyone.
                                                                                
I'm happy either way so I will put my voice on letting PG use unicode (not
ISO 10646) and restrict it to 24 bits. By the time someone wants (if ever)
iso 10646 we probably have support for different charsets and can easily
handle both at the same time.

-- 
/Dennis Bjï¿½rklund


Sat, 7 Aug 2004 14:47:43 +0200 (CEST)
Dennis Bjorklund <db@zigo.dhs.org>
Re: [PATCHES] UNICODE characters above 0x10000