Re: UTF-8S (was: Re: ISO vs Unicode UTF-8)

From: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan (michka@trigeminal.com)
Date: Mon Jun 04 2001 - 12:48:16 EDT


From: "Marco Cimarosti" <marco.cimarosti@essetre.it>

> No, please, let's not make waters more muddied than they already are.
Let's
> keep on calling Oracle's proposal "UTF-8S", as there is no point in
finding
> a cuter name for it.

Fair enough.

> Wrong point! Perhaps it will not hurt applications which read text from
> UTF-8 files and store it in UTF-16 strings.

Well, in this case, there are implementations who do this and it *is*
documented as legal for a parser to do. Sorry if it messes up future
implementations, but someone is going to get hurt here -- and between the
two UTF-16 has been around/accepted longer and has more implementations.

I still think it is best not to do anything with the format at all, I was
just pointing out why official recognition may not be necessary (reason
#623).

MichKa

Michael Kaplan
Trigeminal Software, Inc.
http://www.trigeminal.com/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:17:18 EDT