Re: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, etc?

From: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan (
Date: Thu Oct 12 2000 - 15:59:15 EDT


I assume that Chris was referring to the fact that there were not yet
surrogate pairs (language tags notwithstanding) that were defined until
Boston and Athens.


a new book on internationalization in VB at

----- Original Message -----
From: "Markus Scherer" <>
To: "Unicode List" <>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, etc?

> sorry for responding to an old thread - comment below.
> markus
> Chris Pratley wrote on 2000-oct-03:
> > Surrogate support was not turned on by default in Win2000 because the
> > Windows team was waiting for the standard to be finalized. It was also
> > late, so to reduce the potential impact they had it off - a safe bet
> > the standard was still 1+ years from completion.
> which standard? unicode 2.0 introduced surrogates in 1996. iso 10646-1 got
amended with utf-16 in 1996, too.
> there was nothing new in the technical issues of how to deal with utf-16
since then.
> > Chris

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:14 EDT