3 ms·

in my opinion utf8 should have been a bigger variable length encoding, today it is: 0xxxxxxx 110xxxxx 10xxxxxx 1110xxxx 10xxxxxx 10xxxxxx and 11110xxx 10xx

by afiori 5y ago

in my opinion utf8 should have been a bigger variable length encoding, today it is: 0xxxxxxx 110xxxxx 10xxxxxx 1110xxxx 10xxxxxx 10xxxxxx and 11110xxx 10xxxxxx 10xxxxxx 10xxxxxx the only reason not to push those last bits and add 111110xx 10xxxxxx 10xxxxxx 10xxxxxx 10xxxxxx 1111110x 10xxxxxx 10xxxxxx 10xxxxxx 10xxxxxx 10xxxxxx 11111110 10xxxxxx 10xxxxxx 10xxxxxx 10xxxxxx 10xxxxxx 10xxxxxx and maybe even 11111111 10xxxxxx 10xxxxxx 10xxxxxx 10xxxxxx 10xxxxxx 10xxxxxx 10xxxxxx is utf-32, they should have dropped it and solve the codepoint problem this way.

lifthrasiir 5y ago
First I'd like to introduce you to this: http://ucsx.org/ http://ucsx.org/ But no, there is no particular reason to introduce a longer encoding than the modern UTF-8 (which is actually shortened from the original one-to-six-byte encoding). The current set of 1,114,112 Unicode characters is sufficient for at least the foreseeable future, because any new assignment requires a demonstrable historic or current use. (Emojis are slightly different, but they still require that the underlying concept is widespread and do not significantly overlap with existing emojis. See [1].) Han characters are the largest source of new assignments to this date and they are yet to reach two out of 17 full planes (that would equate to 131K characters). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26904980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26904980