Re: newbie: unicode (when used as a coding) = UTF16LE?

From: Jungshik Shin (
Date: Thu Feb 13 2003 - 05:55:37 EST

  • Next message: Paul Hastings: "traditional vs simplified chinese"

    On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Doug Ewell wrote:

    > Zhang Weiwu <weiwuzhang at hotmail dot com> asked:
    > > Is it that, when people say "unicode" without UTF, they mean UTF16LE?
    > and Jungshik Shin <jshin at mailaps dot org> responded:
    > > No, UTF-16LE is just one of many Unicode transformation form(at)s.
    > but I'm not sure that answered the question Weiwu was really asking.

      Perhaps, too succinct(I wrote other related stuffs, though), but the
    spirit of what you wrote below is in the line above.

    > Despite this Microsoft convention, however, it is not true that
    > "Unicode" automatically means UTF-16, of any type. This was once the
    .....<two paragraphs snipped>

    > Note that "UTF-16 little-endian" is not technically the
    > same as "UTF-16LE"; the former implies the presence of a BOM while the
    > latter implies that none is present.)

      Where does this distinction come from?


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 13 2003 - 06:36:37 EST