> * Unicode isn't necessarily universal, or might stop to be so in future. > If a character is not representable in Unicode, and you chose to use > Unicode for everything, you're screwed
There are provision for private usage codepoints. > * related to the previous point, some other character encodings might > not have a lossless round-trip conversion. Did we need that? The intention is that strings are stored in the format wanted and not recoded without a good reason. >> need a translation table. The only point to solve is we need some >> special way to work with fixed-8 with no intended character >> representation. > Introducing the "no character set" character set is just a special case > of arbitrary character sets. I see no point in using the special case > over the generic one. Because is special, and we need to deal with his speciality in any case. Just concatenating it with any other is plain wrong. Just treating it as iso-8859-1 is not taken in as plain binary at all. But the main point is that the encoding issues is complicated enough even inside unicode, and adding another layer of complexity will make it worse. -- Salu2
