Re: wide-char is wide

[Robin Bannister]

Francisco Vila. wrote:
> the right googleable word is Unicode, do you agree?

Well, not fully. 
When I google for > unicode arabic percent 
I certainly end up at a relevant place 
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/066a/index.htm 

But I am not done. 
I need to collect whatever it is \char needs, 
so I go looking for hexadecimals. 
There are lots of them in a nice table, 
and they are not all saying the same thing. 
This is where "UTF-32" could keep me straight. 


Back to NR 3.3.3 
> The following example shows UTF-8 coded characters being used 

My main point was: UTF-8 is wrong. 

When you criticize UTF-32 as a replacement, are you 
implying that the next word "coded" is wrong too? 

If so, I agree. 
The proper term is Unicode code point (mentioned at the top of 3.3.3) 
and it is just an integer - no need to constrain how it is represented. 
(But base 16 and the codespace slicing went hand in hand.) 

So lets say 
> The following example shows Unicode code points being used
And further up, lets use this same term instead of 
  "Unicode escape sequence"  and  "Unicode hexadecimal code" 


Cheers,
Robin