Yes it is. I use it in reference to Java because Java's
surrogate/supplemental character support is quite limited. It is more
accurate to describe it as UCS-2 support. This isn't to say that valid
UTF-16 sequences are mangled in any way. Just that Java doesn't know what
they are, really.
In this context, UCS-2 vs. UTF-16 is unimportant.
Addison
Addison P. Phillips
Director, Globalization Architecture
webMethods, Inc.
432 Lakeside Drive
Sunnyvale, California, USA
+1 408.962.5487 (phone)
+1 408.210.3569 (mobile)
-------------------------------------------------
Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Persson [mailto:alsjebegrijptwatikbedoel@yahoo.se]
> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 2:45 PM
> To: Addison Phillips [wM]; Philippe de Rochambeau
> Cc: marco.cimarosti@essetre.it; unicode@unicode.org
> Subject: UCS-2 and UTF-16
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Philippe de Rochambeau" <pr1@club-internet.fr>
> To: "Addison Phillips [wM]" <aphillips@webmethods.com>
> Cc: <marco.cimarosti@essetre.it>; <unicode@unicode.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 10:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Problems converting from UTF-8 to UCS-2 and vice-versa using
> JRun 3.1, SQL Server 2000, Windows 2000 and Java 3.1
>
> > > String ucs2 = new String(byt, "UTF-8"); // turn them into a real
> > > UCS-2 string
> >
> > Isn't UCS-2, UTF-16?
>
> Isn't UCS-2 the same as UTF-16 without surrogate support?
>
> Stefan
>
> _____________________________________________________
> Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
> Busenkelt!
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Sep 13 2002 - 00:56:20 EDT