Re: UTF-16 is not Unicode

From: Lars Marius Garshol (larsga@garshol.priv.no)
Date: Wed Feb 13 2002 - 09:40:24 EST


* Michael Everson
|
| I think it's clear that Unicode should give some advice as to how to
| announce encoding options in a useful way to the end user. For the
| two encodings we are discussing, may I suggest the following
| standard menu items:
|
| Unicode (Raw, UTF-16)
| Unicode (Web, UTF-8)

I don't think calling it "raw" is very good. It just keeps alive the
myth that UTF-16 *is* Unicode. None of the UTFs are "raw", and the
closest must surely be UTF-32.

The below would probably be easier:

  Unicode (UTF-16)
  Unicode (UTF-8, default)

If you know what you're doing you can choose what you want. If not,
you should just choose UTF-8.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Feb 13 2002 - 09:07:43 EST