From: Antoine Leca (Antoine10646@leca-marti.org)
Date: Tue Nov 23 2004 - 13:55:38 CST
RE: My QuerryMike Ayers wrote
> Addison Phillips Sent on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:14 AM
>> That is, amoung other things
>> UTF-8 was designed specifically to be compatible with C
>> language strings.
>
> Wrong!
What is wrong? That UTF-8 (born FSS-UTF) was designed to be compatible with
C language strings?
Of course it was. Even more, it had to be compatible with the '/' codepoint,
very important in Unix.
Another problem entirelly is to determine if it _succeeded_ at this aim.
> UTF-8 is fully compatible with ASCII,
I do not know what does mean "fully compatible" in such a context. For
example, ASCII as designed allowed (please note I did not write "was
designed to allow") the use of the 8th bit as parity bit when transmitted as
octet on a telecommunication line; I doubt such use is compatible with
UTF-8.
I do not object to your point about impossibility to represent NUL with C.
But as you say, very often this is not an actual problem.
Antoine
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 23 2004 - 14:00:34 CST