On Fri, 3 May 2002 02:30:11 +0300
Jarkko Hietaniemi <jhi(_at_)iki(_dot_)fi> wrote:
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:01:34AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2002 07:00:05 -0700, jhi(_at_)iki(_dot_)fi (Jarkko
Hietaniemi) wrote:
Change 16302 by jhi(_at_)alpha on 2002/05/01 12:54:24
Provide the \N{U+HHHH} syntax before we forget.
Do we also want to support U-HHHHHH? I seem to recall from somewhere
Hmmm. One always learns something new... where did you find that format?
that U+HHHH went to U+FFFF and that code points beyond that were
U-HHHHHHHH (i.e. U+ form took 4 hex chars and U- form took 8 hex chars,
or something like that.)
U-HHHHHHHH format is mentioned in Preface, 0.2 Notational Convention,
in Unicode 3.0.
http://www.unicode.org/uni2book/Preface.pdf
http://www.unicode.org/uni2book/u2.html
But Unicode 3.1 extends U+HHHH notation beyond 0xFFFF.
cf. http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr27/
Citation from here
II Notational Changes for the Standard
Section 0.2 Notational Conventions, page xxviii:
change the description of the U+ notation to read:
In running text, an individual Unicode code point
can be expressed as U+n, where n is from four to six
hexadecimal digits, using the digits 0-9 and A-F
(for 10 through 15, respectively).
There should be no leading zeros, unless the codepoint
would have fewer than four hexadecimal digits;
for example,
U+0001, U+0012, U+0123, U+1234, U+12345, U+102345.
End of citation
Therefore U-0001FFFF is U+1FFFF and U-0010FFFF is U+10FFFF.
Regards,
SADAHIRO Tomoyuki
