begin quoting Andrew Lentvorski as of Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 09:39:18AM -0800: > Stewart Stremler wrote: > > >I read it as "routines that handle ASCII can handle UTF8", which > >isn't necessarily true; rather than routines that handle UTF8 can > >transparently handle ASCII. > > Ah. Sorry. That is true. If the program isn't 8-bit-clean, UTF-8 will > give it heartburn. > > However, ANSI handling also requires being 8-bit-clean. Most C-routines > over the past 15 years have been able to cope with 8-bit ANSI characters.
Thus, my response about ANSI, not ASCII. UTF8 display is not ANSI-compatible, IIRC. That's a great pity. > >UTF-7 does, so far as I can tell. > > Yep, sorry. Since nobody uses UTF-7, I often forget about it. I decided that there ought to be one, so I looked, and lo, there it was. It's ugly, and probably deserving of being frequently forgotton.... but then, that's what I think of Unicode in general. :-/ (And there's apparently folks pondering UTF6 and UTF5 as well. Whee!) -- Still pondering devising an encoding of my own. UTF-SS anyone? Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
