Phillip B. Holmes wrote: >1. Java being designed 10 years ago has nothing to do with the fact that >Unicode is represented as hex internally.
No, it doesn't. But my point was that Unicode isn't actually a "double-byte character set". The number of code points in the latest version of Unicode exceeds the maximum range of a 16-bit int (JSR 204 added support for these characters in Java 1.5). I was trying to point out that the fact that Java happens to store Unicode internally with 16-bit characters is largely irrelevant to a discussion of UTF-8. >2. Some characters in DBCS charsets cannot be rendered via UTF-8. period. > >Look it up if you don't believe me: >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8 I did look it up. In fact, I linked to the same Wikipedia article in the message to which you're replying. I don't see anything in that article that even suggests what you assert as fact #2. In fact, the first table in the Description section of that article demonstrates exactly how the entire range of 16-bit values (and then some) is encoded in UTF-8. Care to quote the relevant passage? Sixten ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:260967 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
