In
<caarmm9q_zkn7ud1gqq1_8vdk0p2taf+q0jnkmhkmu8ljtzd...@mail.gmail.com>,
on 12/11/2015
at 11:57 AM, Tony Harminc <[email protected]> said:
>You can't have it both ways.
Another red herring; google for "identity".
>I said "UTF-8 *is* Unicode".
No; you said "UTF-8 *is* Unicode, as are UTF-16 and UTF-32."; the "as
are" includes UTF-16", hence the no.
>You said "No, UTF-32 is Unicode".
Correct. Google for UTF-32.
>Now you're saying none of them is Unicode.
No, I'm challenging the claim that UTF-8 and UTF-16 are Unicode.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
