Ah, I did know that! :-)
The place I find a UTF-8 bias most often is in people doing web content and
people working with Oracle. Good to know there are others with UCS-2/UTF-16
biases!
And of course its even better when we get them to accept that they are
mainly different ways of expressing the same thing.
michka
----- Original Message -----
From: <addison@inter-locale.com>
To: "Michael (michka) Kaplan" <michka@trigeminal.com>
Cc: "Unicode List" <unicode@unicode.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: Unicode in VFAT file system
> That's not true. Even serious UNIX shops start with the perception that
> there is only one Unicode and that it is 16-bits (UCS-2). I get this *all*
> the time.
>
> Addison
>
> ===========================================================
> Addison P. Phillips Principal Consultant
> Inter-Locale LLC http://www.inter-locale.com
> Los Gatos, CA, USA mailto:addison@inter-locale.com
>
> +1 408.210.3569 (mobile) +1 408.904.4762 (fax)
> ===========================================================
> Globalization Engineering & Consulting Services
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
>
> > Although there is some truth here.... the fact is that it is not really
true
> > today that everyone equates the two. The default thought on people's
minds
> > these days when they think of Unicode is UTF-8, it seems like. And this
is
> > mainly due to applications of Unicode to the web, I think.
> >
> > In the meantime, Microsoft is still pretty firmly rooted in the idea
that
> > Unicode=USC-2 (or UTF-16le on Windows 2000). UTF-8 is named UTF-8 and
> > considered to be a multibyte encoding.
> >
> > michka
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Doug Ewell" <dewell@compuserve.com>
> > To: "Unicode List" <unicode@unicode.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 10:41 PM
> > Subject: Re: Unicode in VFAT file system
> >
> >
> > > Addison Phillips <addison@inter-locale.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Avoiding for the moment the word-parsing that Markus suggests,
Unicode
> > > > on Microsoft platforms has always been LE (at least on Intel) and
they
> > > > have called the encoding they use "UCS-2" (when they bothered with
> > > > such things: in the past they always called it "Unicode" as if it
were
> > > > the *only* encoding). As Unicode has evolved, Microsoft products
have
> > > > become more exact in this regard.
> > >
> > > I remember that in the early to mid '90s, before the invention (or at
> > > least widespread use) of UTF-8, UTF-32, and surrogates, *everybody* --
> > > not just Microsoft -- used the term "Unicode" to refer to what we
would
> > > now call UCS-2. Even the Unicode Consortium did this! And even now,
> > > the few of my co-workers who know about Unicode (I'm trying to spread
> > > the word, folks, honest) think a "Unicode text file" is UCS-2 by
> > > definition. I don't know what they would think of a UTF-8 file --
> > > nobody but me is knowingly using them yet. In any case, this usage is
> > > by no means confined to Microsoft.
> > >
> > > -Doug Ewell
> > > Fullerton, California
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:06 EDT