- From: Norbert Lindenberg <w3@norbertlindenberg.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 22:46:24 -0700
- To: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Cc: Norbert Lindenberg <w3@norbertlindenberg.com>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>, www-international@w3.org, Internationalization Core Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>, public-rdf-comments Comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On Sep 7, 2012, at 21:49 , Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>> I like the \u{X} form (where X may be 1-6 hex digits) that seems to be under consideration for ECMAScript. I believe Ruby does this too.
>
> Yes for Ruby. Indeed, Ruby is where this form originated. I was in the room when Matz (Ruby's creator) was working it out on a whiteboard; I can figure out the exact date if you need :-).
>
> I had stimulated Matz's thoughts in the morning of the same day with a lesser version based on metaprogramming (see http://rubyforge.org/projects/charesc/), but the syntactic elegance of the \u{X} form is all his.
>
> Actually, it allows several Unicode codepoints inside the {}, separated by spaces. E.g., \u{BC 378 ABCD 10FFFF}. A single codepoint can also be written without {} if you make sure there are exactly four hex digits (i.e., \uABCD).
Before or after 2003? That's when Markus Scherer first proposed \u{X} for ECMAScript:
https://sites.google.com/site/markusicu/unicode/es/unicode-2003
Norbert
Received on Saturday, 8 September 2012 05:58:05 UTC