Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2005/05/21/14:19:06
Hello.
ams AT ludd DOT ltu DOT se wrote:
> According to Richard Dawe:
>
>>You're confusing the codepoint, which is the numbering of characters,
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>symbols, etc. with how you represent them. The codepoints are abstract.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>>When you talk about "Unicode encoding", this is UTF-32, a mapping of
>>0x10ffff to a 32-bit integer. That may not seem like an encoding, but it
>>is, because of endianness in the encoded data.
>
>
> Ok.
>
> 1. But suppose I decide to use the inverted Unicode codepoints (IUC),
> which I just invented, where
> "IUC character value" == 0x10ffff - "Unicode chararcter value".
>
> Now I have a different set of codepoints. To me, IUC and Unicode are
> two different encodings (of characters).
Well the Unicode codepoint is still the same. A value in your IUC is an
encoding of the codepoint, not a codepoint.
> 2. I which way _isn't_ Unicode a "numbering of characters, symbols,
> etc"?
Unicode is a numbering of characters, symbols, etc.
I think I misunderstand your question.
Bye, Rich =]
--
Richard Dawe [ http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~phekda/richdawe/ ]
"You can't evaluate a man by logic alone."
-- McCoy, "I, Mudd", Star Trek
- Raw text -