[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Surrogates and character representation
On Saturday 23 July 2005 00:19, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Tom Emerson <tree@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > Surrogate codepoints have a character property. They should be usable
> > in a string, and individually can be considered a character.
> This is exactly part of the reason why char=codepoint is such a lose.
> Most code doesn't *want* to see this kind of garbage; it's an encoding
> issue. I want chars where the *computer* takes care of the coding. I
> want chars that are fully-understood characters, not little pieces of
> a character.
This points out a tension underlying this thread.
There are two dicsussions intertwined here.  The access to and use of
Unicode within Scheme (e.g. to process internationalized web pages) and 
bringing Unicode into Scheme (extending Symbol & String datatypes).
SRFI-75 specifically addresses the second of these goals and (wisely) states
that the first goal is left to another SRFI.
I for one would be satisfied to be able to portably manipulate Unicode using
Scheme source encoded in ASCII (or UTF-8). In particular, I would be willing
use have a separate datatype (or datatypes) and libraries to accomplish this.
Would anyone care to post a Unicode Encoding & I/O SRFI, so that the *other*
discussion can be moved from this thread to that one?