Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author: "Michael B. Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.utf8
>
> 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.
>
The thing you gain is that when your upstream vendor goes "oh sh*t"
and changes either to UTF-16LE or does the sensible thing and defines
a UTF-8 or UCS-4 interface, you'll already be covered.
-hpa
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at work, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
