SMTP and unicode

From: faraz siddiqi (siddiqifaraz@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue May 17 2005 - 12:38:41 CDT

  • Next message: Peter Constable: "RE: what is Latn?"



    Dear all

    how r u ? thanx for ur support in my last problem, i am making an email editor for urdu from which my client wants to relay emails in urdu language its all right now i want to ask that i have written middle tier to grab urdu data from user interface and relay data to destination, i whave written middle tier just like engllish my question is smtp by default support utf-8 encoding or i have to implement some external things to render it in correct format ? please give me some samples if u have any , i am nwe to programming i ned support from you people

    Regards

    Faraz






    Faraz Siddiqi             
    IGT & E (C/G) GHQ           Ministry of Defence Chaklala 
     Cantt Rawalpindi  0300-5348722                    0333-2604790

     

    Dear All

    AOA i am making a unicode urdu email editor i want to i write midle tier to grab and relay data from text boxes as we do for english please let me know smtp by default will send data or i have to change code or implement some external commands, pls help me i am new to programming and got my first project related to unicode

    Faraz


    >From: Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se>
    >To: "Doug Ewell" <dewell@adelphia.net>
    >CC: "Unicode Mailing List" <unicode@unicode.org>
    >Subject: Re: ASCII and Unicode lifespan (was: Corrections to Glagolitic)
    >Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 18:25:27 +0200
    >
    >At 06:56 -0700 2005/05/17, Doug Ewell wrote:
    >>Hans Aberg <haberg at math dot su dot se> replied:
    >>
    >>> It can be instructive to check the history of ASCII. See for
    >>>example
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASCII
    >>> It says that the presently most widely used form is ANSI
    >>>X3.4-1986.
    >>> So that standard has been in active use only 19 years.
    >>
    >>That's not a standard, it's a version of a standard. That would be
    >>like
    >>talking about the life expectancy of "Unicode 4.1" instead of
    >>"Unicode."
    >
    >Of course.
    >
    >>For 99.9% of ASCII usage, there is no difference between the 1967
    >>version of ASCII and the 1986 update. I believe the update had to
    >>do
    >>with the issue of treating 0x24 as a nationally variable "currency
    >>sign"
    >>versus hard-coding it to the dollar sign.
    >
    >It could mean that Unicode has a few more years of longevity to hope
    >for. :-)
    >--
    > Hans Aberg
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 17 2005 - 12:39:21 CDT