Re: variations of UTF-16/UTF-32 and browsers' interpretation (was Re: browsers and unicode surrogates)

From: Tom Gewecke (tom@bluesky.org)
Date: Wed Apr 24 2002 - 17:14:49 EDT

Previous message: John Cowan: "Re: Variations of UTF-16 (was: Re: "UNICODE BOMBER STRIKES AGAIN")"
In reply to: Jungshik Shin: "variations of UTF-16/UTF-32 and browsers' interpretation (was Re: browsers and unicode surrogates)"
Next in thread: Michael Everson: "Re: variations of UTF-16/UTF-32 and browsers' interpretation (was Re: browsers and unicode surrogates)"
Next in thread: Martin Duerst: "Re: browsers and unicode surrogates"
Reply: Michael Everson: "Re: variations of UTF-16/UTF-32 and browsers' interpretation (was Re: browsers and unicode surrogates)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Following is result of Mac OS X and OmniWeb browser on
<http://jshin.net/i18n/utftest>

5 cases of proper display:

+Y, BE, 16, UTF-16 and UTF-16BE
+Y, LE, 16, UTF-16
+N, BE, 16, UTF-16 and UTF-16BE

All the rest showed only the ascii correctly.

Previous message: John Cowan: "Re: Variations of UTF-16 (was: Re: "UNICODE BOMBER STRIKES AGAIN")"
In reply to: Jungshik Shin: "variations of UTF-16/UTF-32 and browsers' interpretation (was Re: browsers and unicode surrogates)"
Next in thread: Michael Everson: "Re: variations of UTF-16/UTF-32 and browsers' interpretation (was Re: browsers and unicode surrogates)"
Next in thread: Martin Duerst: "Re: browsers and unicode surrogates"
Reply: Michael Everson: "Re: variations of UTF-16/UTF-32 and browsers' interpretation (was Re: browsers and unicode surrogates)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Apr 24 2002 - 18:33:51 EDT