>In the meantime, Microsoft is still pretty firmly rooted in the idea that
>Unicode=USC-2 (or UTF-16le on Windows 2000).
I don't think we can make a blanket statement about MS being firmly rooted
in USC-2. They're very big and manage lots of code that a lot of people use
on a regular basis, and different parts of their code are in different
states. This thread started with VFAT, and it has been observed that,
perhaps, VFAT handles UTF-16 perfectly well while the UI that displays VFAT
strings still only understands UCS-2. Considering some other parts of their
code: Apple updated the TrueType spec to handle non-BMPs and I understand
that MS has already implemented support for that. So, somewhere their code
is handling UTF-16. Chris Pratley has indicated on this list or in his last
Unicode presentation that the next version of Office will handle non-BMPs,
so it will soon be doing UTF-16. But then, many of the controls that come
with their development tools are still only support "ANSI" text (e.g. in VB
you store Unicode strings, but don't expect to display anything not
supported by a codepage in a list box).
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <peter_constable@sil.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:06 EDT