Fw: Default endianness of Unicode, or not

From: Mark Davis (mark@macchiato.com)
Date: Mon Apr 15 2002 - 12:59:40 EDT


I reversed miswrote as BE; sorry for the confusion.

Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Ewell" <dewell@adelphia.net>
To: "Mark Davis" <mark@macchiato.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 18:13
Subject: [private] Re: Default endianness of Unicode, or not

> > If UTF-16 (serialized) without a BOM, could be in either order,
then
> > the interpretation would be indeterminate. If you want to output
> > <0x34 0x12 0x61 0x00 0x00 0xD8 0x00 0xDC> then tag it as UTF-16BE,
> > not just UTF-16.
>
> I assume you mean "tag it as UTF-16LE."
>
> -Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: "Markus Scherer" <markus.scherer@jtcsv.com>
To: "Mark Davis" <mark@macchiato.com>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 09:52
Subject: Re: Default endianness of Unicode, or not

> Mark Davis wrote:
>
> > If UTF-16 (serialized) without a BOM, could be in either order,
then
> > the interpretation would be indeterminate. If you want to output
<0x34
> > 0x12 0x61 0x00 0x00 0xD8 0x00 0xDC> then tag it as UTF-16BE, not
just
> > UTF-16.
>
>
> The second email in this thread where you _mean_ UTF-16LE but you
_write_ UTF-16BE...
> markus



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Apr 15 2002 - 11:22:32 EDT