On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Paulo Marques wrote: > Maybe you have probably noticed this already, but this strange strings > look like unicode UCS-16 encoded. Microsoft at one point was pushing > really hard for UCS-16 everything and use "wide strings" everywhere. (to > the point that WindowsCE initially only supported those)
Of course they are UCS-16 encoded. That's what they are supposed to be, according to the USB spec. > So maybe they created an "extension" to the standard where the device > can send unicode strings (so that you can have device names in any > language) if it reports descriptor type 0. Naturally, this are all just > assumptions. No, you're wrong. The standard says that the strings are always sent as 16-bit Unicode characters. Reporting type 0 and length 0 may be some weird non-compliant vendor extension, but it's unrelated to the encoding. > Encoding this things as utf-8 would seem much better (to me, at least). > ASCII names would Just Work(tm), the length field could keep its > meaning, etc. This means that Microsoft had to choose the non-standard, > stupidest path :) > > Just my 2 cents, Alan Stern ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170 Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement on who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM. Deadline: Sept. 24. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
