Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> When 137,468 private-use characters aren't enough? > > Why is that relevant to the issue at hand?
You're right. I did ask what the uses of non-standard UTF-8 were, and you gave me an example. > I don't remember off hand, but last time I looked at GB18030, there > were a lot of them not in Unicode. I'd forgotten that there were still about two dozen GB18030 characters mapped, more or less officially, into the Unicode PUA. But again, I changed the subject. Sorry about that. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
