From: Chris Jacobs (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Nov 23 2004 - 18:23:25 CST
RE: My Querry
----- Original Message -----
From: Addison Phillips [wM]
To: Mike Ayers
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 8:15 PM
Subject: RE: My Querry
> Hi Mike,
> You misread my sentence, I think. I did NOT say that C language strings are compatible with UTF-8, but rather that the UTF-8 was
> designed with compatibility with C language "strings" (char*) in mind. The point of UTF-8 was actually to be compatible with Unix
> systems, of course. But one stimulus for the encoding was so that the Plan9 operating system wouldn't have to rewrite the C
> libraries to deal with UTF-16 (then UCS-2). In other words, my statement is quite correct about the design goals of FSS-UTF,
> UTF-8's progenitor. See for example:
> If you read carefully, you'll see the desire to protect the null and \ bytes.
Maybe, but if you read the unicode standards carefully you'll see they claim compatibility of UTF-8 with ASCII.
Now, this implies that UTF-8 does interpret U+0000 as an ASCII NULL control char.
This is incompatible with using it as a string terminator.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 23 2004 - 18:27:19 CST