From: "Carl W. Brown" <cbrown@xnetinc.com>
> I think that UTF-16x would be a better approach than UTF-8s. I am sure
that
> I have missed some issues feel free to comment. In any case UTF-16s would
> naturally be in Unicode code point order. It would be easy to transform
to
> UCS-2 for applications that do not support UTF-16.
Carl, you are missing the central point of the UTF-8S movement -- they do
not want to change anything. Hell, they do not even want to change the
*name* they are so disinterested in changing anything! They want the Unicode
standard to embrace their format and support their bug, and not change a
bleeding thing.
They are distorting the truth (companies who only care about the whole mess
for the sake of compatibility with Oracle are being quoted as being
"intensely supportive of UTF-8S", and I'm sorry but distortion is the only
word for it). Revisionist history and revisionist present/future at its
finest, all you need is suspension is diebelief and you can vote for UTF-8S
knowing that you are saving the standard from oblivion!
Where are all these conspiracy buffs when you need them? They can have a
field day with this little adventure we have been having.
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