Unicode confusion

[David Megginson]

roddey at us.ibm.com writes:

> If anything, it should go the other way. Unicode should be the core
> API, and there should be helper API to allow the use of local code
> page chars where necessary. Everything should be set up to optimize
> use of the Unicode API, with local code page use paying the price,
> since Unicode is the more desireable format.

No one's disagreeing with the use of Unicode; we're talking about
which character encoding we'll use to represent it.  You can represent
Unicode in variable-width 8-bit or 16-bit encodings or in fixed-width
32-bit encodings.

Note that Java uses UTF-16, which isn't quite fixed-width, though no
one really notices.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david at megginson.com
           http://www.megginson.com/

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;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)