On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, Jungshik Shin wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
> > In any case, I think that UTF-16 is the answer here.
> > Many people try to compare this to DBCS, but it really is not the same
> > thing.... understanding lead bytes and trail bytes in DBCS is *astoundingly*
> > more complicated than handling surrogate pairs.
> Well, it depends on what multibyte encoding you're talking about. In case
> of 'pure' EUC encodings (EUC-JP, EUC-KR, EUC-CN, EUC-TW) as opposed to
> SJIS(Windows94?), Windows-949(UHC), Windows-950, WIndows-125x(JOHAB),
> ISO-2022-JP(-2), ISO-2022-KR, ISO-2022-CN , it's not that hard (about
> the same as UTF-16, I believe, especially in case of EUC-CN and EUC-KR)
I would move EUC-JP and EUC-TW, and possibly EUC-KR (if you use more than
KS X 1001 in it) to the "complicated" group because of the shifting bytes
required to get to different planes/character sets.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:15 EDT