9 Jan
2014
9 Jan
'14
2:10 p.m.
Greg Ewing writes:
If I understand correctly, your intention is that 61 62 63 FF in this representation would simply be a more compact version of 0061 0062 0063 DCFF, with exactly the same semantics.
Pretty much so. There remain some ambiguities and questions about efficient implementability in my mind.
If that's right, then maybe something like "compressed surrogateescape" or "8-bit surrogateescape" would be a better name for it?
Maybe. Thanks for the suggestion! However, as I mentioned already I'm going to back off on this for a while, because in the process of analyzing Inada-san's use case I realized that by itself it doesn't save much besides space, and isn't pretty too boot.