Re: Version(s) of Unicode supported by various versions of Microsoft Windows

From: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan (
Date: Fri Mar 05 2004 - 13:44:50 EST

  • Next message: Antoine Leca: "Re: Version(s) of Unicode supported by various versions of Microsoft Windows"

    From: "Antoine Leca" <>

    > Well, I do not believe this is the most adequate place to discuss this,

    For what it is worth, I agree with you on that point. :-)

    > Now, the file in XP is still exactly 262144 bytes in size. To me, this is
    > evidence that only the BMP characters did receive weights in this file.

    Actually, it is evidence only that the original *default* table architecture
    cannot contain "tailorings" for anything off the BMP (note that they can
    conceivably have a default weighting via the surrogate code units that are
    on the BMP).

    > Since SORTTBLS.NLS is still a ridiculous 20 k in size, it does not hold
    > weights.

    Well, this assumes (1) that there is no other mechanism added and (2) there
    are only large scripts in the world beyond the BMP. The former may well be
    false and the latter is definitely false. :-)

    In any case, a few of your assumptions are already mistaken, and most
    importantly you seem to be focusing on collation which, though cool as a
    topic, is not related to Unicode conformance at all so we are very far
    afield of the original question in the "black box" investigation you have

    > Now, what I do not know is:
    > - if the Win32 NLS API has been fully upgraded to Unicode 3.0 for XP. I
    > thinking that when I did research it earlier today, since the sizes of the
    > .NLS files did accordingly increase, but since I did not find the relevant
    > KB article I was not sure. Michael's approximate answer (I beg your pardon
    > if this was not the intent) that may lead to think it is an almost-full,
    > almost-empty pot, is not a very good news

    Again, this is very far afield -- and it is interesting that just about
    every person who has read this thread takes the question to mean something
    different. You have specifically chosen to take an NLS API that does not
    relate to Unicode conformance -- so the question "does it support Unicode
    version _____?" is hard to cast appropriately.

    See Peter Constable's excellent email for more on the actual way the
    question should be asked to be able to get a good answer.

    > - what is the status with NT 5.2 a.k.a. Server 2003, since I do not have
    > access right now to this version. A quick look to the size of SORTKEY.NLS
    > would give some hints: 256 Ki would say it is still at 3.0 level, 768 Ki
    > (Plane 0, 1 and 2, perhaps with some adjust to cover the delightful plane
    > 14) would be an indication it supports meaningful surrogates without heavy
    > changes to the scheme, 4352 Ki (4.25 Mi, 17 * 256Ki) would say the
    > programmer did extend the table without even thinking about how to
    > it (I do not think it happens, but who knows), and some much smaller size
    > would mean the algorithm was revised!

    You would likely be disappointed, as the size of sortkey.nls has not
    changed. But let me mention that I am the dev. owner of those file and the
    APIs associated with them and I can assure you that this is not an accurate
    measure of Unicode support on Windows

    > - by the way, the same question can be asked with the beta releases of
    > Longhorn. However, there is not much point trying to nail down the level
    > Unicode support of a beta.

    Microsoft does not generally comment on unreleased products.

    MichKa [MS]
    NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
    Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 05 2004 - 14:23:17 EST