Re: UTF8 vs AL32UTF8

From: Misha Wolf (Misha.Wolf@reuters.com)
Date: Mon Jun 11 2001 - 13:20:44 EDT


On 11/06/2001 16:18:15 Mark Davis wrote:
[...]

> - Oracle could probably make a case for their name for UTF8 simply being an
> anachronism. After all, the original definition of UTF-8 did convert
> surrogate pairs as they are doing in what they call UTF8.

Which original definition?

Misha

-----------------------------------------------------------------
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.



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