> I would advise you against using UCS-2, as it is only a partial
> solution. Use UCS-4 instead. It has recently been approved in ISO
> to add characters in ISO 10646 beyond the 64 k.
I would but the protocol of the server I'm writing uses UCS-2LE for
all strings wherever possible (usernames, pathnames etc). Since I don't
gain anything by using UCS-4 if the wire-format won't carry it, and for
reasons of efficiency, I felt playing along with the UCS-2 was best. I'm
only being cautious (and curious) about wchar_t (wprintf function for
logging perhaps). Do you still see any reson to convert to a type that
is 2x the size? I have to admit I've only just become familiar with all
this character encoding stuff. It's interesting though! I like your FAQ
Markus; great document.
Thanks,
Mike
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
