Re: UTF-16 inside UTF-8

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Wed Nov 05 2003 - 14:15:13 EST

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: UTF-16 inside UTF-8"

    Frank Yung-Fong Tang <YTang0648 at aol dot com> wrote:

    >> At the risk of upsetting the open-source faithful, that is just plain
    >> lazy.
    > I don't think you shoudl call it "lazy". It is just "under
    > construction" if such software is still in "alpha". How many software
    > have such support in their "Alpha" stage in your company ?

    My company is not the best example here; we're well behind the curve
    when it comes to Unicode, and i18n/L10n generally.

    That said, I think it would be much faster and less error-prone, for a
    company adding Unicode support to a product for the first time, to
    support the entire Unicode range from the outset, rather than supporting
    just the BMP in the alpha stage and then "adding" support for
    supplementary characters. For UTF-8 in particular, I can't imagine why
    one would choose to implement the 1-, 2-, and 3-byte forms in one stage
    and add the 4-byte forms in a later stage.

    -Doug Ewell
     Fullerton, California

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 05 2003 - 15:13:39 EST