From: Carl W. Brown (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Nov 14 2002 - 21:03:04 EST
> You seem to suggest that there is a problem with 16-bit Unicode.
> It does take some effort to adapt
> UCS-2-designed functions for UTF-16, but it's not "rocket
> science" and works very well thanks to the
> Unicode allocation practice (common characters in the BMP).
> Making UTF-8/32 functions work with
> supplementary code points when they had assumed BMP-only
> operation probably took some work too.
Converting from UCS-2 to UTF-16 is just like converting from SBCS to DBCS.
For folks who think DBCS it is no problem. Those who went from DBCS to
Unicode to simplify their lives I am sure are not happy.
I think that worst problem is that many systems still sort in binary not
code point order. Then you get Oracle and the like wanting to set up a
UTF-8 variant that encode each surrogate rather than the character.
However, 16 bit characters were a hard enough sell in the good old days. If
we had started out withug 2bit characters we would still be dreaming about
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 14 2002 - 21:49:42 EST