UTF-8 vs UTF-16...? (Was: Feeling good about SML)
sb at metis.no
Wed Nov 17 12:24:40 GMT 1999
>>>>> "James Tauber" <jtauber at jtauber.com>:
> UTF-8 and UTF-16 are transformations formats of ISO10646, not
Aren't Unicode and ISO 10646 pretty much one and the same these days?
At least that's how I read:
<URL:http://www.unicode.org/unicode/faq/#Unicode and ISO 10646>
> UTF-8 gives access to all 2^31 characters from the UCS repertoire.
> UTF-16, however, only gives access to the equivalent of Unicode with the
> surrogate extension mechanism, ie the first 17 planes of the UCS.
Not sure if I understand the UTF-16 bit above, but I'm reading this:
<URL:http://www.unicode.org/unicode/faq/#UTF-16 and UCS-4>
to UTF-16 being able to represent the full UCS-4, which is what you
say UTF-8 can do, if I interpret you correctly...?
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev