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

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Thu Feb 13 2003 - 11:30:48 EST

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: newbie: unicode (when used as a coding) = UTF16LE?"

    Jungshik Shin <jshin at mailaps dot org> wrote:

    >> 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?

    The sources I checked were UTR #17, "Character Encoding Model," and UAX
    #19, "UTF-32." The latter does not specifically talk about UTF-16BE or
    UTF-16LE, but uses the same definitions to distinguish UTF-32, UTF-32BE,
    and UTF-32LE that we are using here.

    Mark Davis can probably point you to other sources as well.

    -Doug Ewell
     Fullerton, California

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 13 2003 - 12:14:11 EST