Re: Languages supported by UTF8 and UTF16

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Sun Sep 11 2005 - 23:03:15 CDT

  • Next message: Chris Harvey: "Re: How to encode underlined characters"

    Richard Wordingham <richard dot wordingham at ntlworld dot com> wrote:

    >> Considering what canonical decomposition means, and that e.g. U+006F
    >> U+0301 is absolutely identical to U+00F3, that distinction, however
    >> clear, is meaningless.
    > However, they may render differently! For example, Lucida Sans
    > Unicode Version 2.0 (dated 1993) has U+0323 combining dot below, but
    > not U+1E6D, LATIN SMALL LETTER T WITH DOT BELOW. So U+0074 U+0323 is
    > rendered from the font, but U+1E6D is not, despite their having
    > identical meanings.

    I know people hate to hear this phrase, but This Is Not Unicode's
    Problem. Unicode assumes that sufficient rendering-engine power is
    available to display whatever the application (OS, user app, whatever)
    claims to be able to display. The canonical equivalence does matter.
    The existence in a 12-year-old font of some character mappings but not
    others does not change this.

    Doug Ewell
    Fullerton, California

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 11 2005 - 23:04:55 CDT