On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 10:25:24 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Rustom Mody wrote: > > > > It lists some examples of software that somehow break/goof going from > > BMP-only > > unicode to 7.0 unicode. > > > > IOW the suggestion is that the the two-way classification > > - ASCII > > - Unicode > > > > is less useful and accurate than the 3-way > > > > - ASCII > > - BMP > > - Unicode > > How is that more useful? Aside from storage optimizations (in which > the significant breaks would be Latin-1, UCS-2, and UCS-4), the BMP is > not significantly different from the rest of Unicode.
Sorry... Dont understand. > > Also, the expansion from 16-bit was back in Unicode 2.0, not 7.0. Why > do you keep talking about 7.0 as if it's a recent change? It is 2015 as of now. 7.0 is the current standard. The need for the adjective 'current' should be pondered upon. In practice, standards change. However if a standard changes so frequently that that users have to play catching cook and keep asking: "Which version?" they are justified in asking "Are the standard-makers doing due diligence?" -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
