Why UTF-8/16 character encodings?

[Joakim]

On Sunday, 26 May 2013 at 21:08:40 UTC, Marcin Mstowski wrote:
> On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Joakim <joakim at airpost.net> 
> wrote:
>> Also, one of the first pages talks about representations of 
>> floating point
>> and integer numbers, which are outside the purview of the text 
>> encodings
>> we're talking about.
>
>
> They are outside of scope of CDRA too. At least read picture 
> description
> before making out of context assumptions.
Which picture description did you have in mind?  They all seem 
fairly generic.  I do see now that one paragraph does say that 
CDRA only deals with graphical characters and that they were only 
talking about numbers earlier to introduce the topic of data 
representation.

>> If you can show that it is materially similar to my 
>> single-byte encoding
>> idea, it might be worth looking into.
>>
>
> Spending ~15 min to read Introduction isn't worth your time, so 
> why should
> i waste my time showing you anything ?
You claimed that my encoding was reinventing the wheel, therefore 
the onus is on you to show which of the multiple encodings CDRA 
uses that I'm reinventing.  I'm not interested in delving into 
the docs for some dead IBM format to prove _your_ point.  More 
likely, you are just dead wrong and CDRA simply uses code pages, 
which are not the same as the single-byte encoding with a header 
idea that I've sketched in this thread.