IssueRaiser

Something I've wondered about is why, given Unicode is limited to 21 bits now, nobody seems to be using a 24-bit format ("UTF-24")?

Something I've wondered about is why, given Unicode is limited to 21 bits now, nobody seems to be using a 24-bit format ("UTF-24")? If you want constant-time indexing without bit-packing tricks, that'd be the ideal. Though, of course, constant-time indexing isn't what it's hyped up to be. That's only for codepoints. Actual characters you see on screen are often combinations of codepoints. So I've answered my own question really. Why does nobody use it? Because there's no point in it. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10143836/why-is-there-no-...

Posted by TazeTSchnitzel on May 28, 2015, 2:55 PM

Tags

Related issues

Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.6,500 issues0 comments

hackernews (EdTech)

Something I've wondered about is why, given Unicode is limited to 21 bits now, nobody seems to be using a 24-bit format ("UTF-24")?

TazeTSchnitzelMay 28, 2015, 2:55 PM

Something I've wondered about is why, given Unicode is limited to 21 bits now, nobody seems to be using a 24-bit format ("UTF-24")? If you want constant-time indexing without bit-packing tricks, that'd be the ideal. Though, of course, constant-time indexing isn't what it's hyped up to be. That's only for codepoints. Actual characters you see on screen are often combinations of codepoints. So I've answered my own question really. Why does nobody use it? Because there's no point in it. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10143836/why-is-there-no-...

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Start the discussion.

Comment on this issue