On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 00:49, Hannu Krosing wrote: > Tatsuo Ishii kirjutas N, 06.02.2003 kell 17:05: > > > Perhaps we should not call the encoding UNICODE but UTF8 (which it > > > really is). UNICODE is a character set which has half a dozen official > > > encodings and calling one of them "UNICODE" does not make things very > > > clear. > > > > Right. Also we perhaps should call LATIN1 or ISO-8859-1 more precisely > > way since ISO-8859-1 can be encoded in either 7 bit or 8 bit(we use > > this). I don't know what it is called though. > > I don't think that calling 8-bit ISO-8859-1 ISO-8859-1 can confuse > anybody, but UCS-2 (ISO-10646-1), UTF-8 and UTF-16 are all widely used. > > UTF-8 seems to be the most popular, but even XML standard requires all > compliant implementations to deal with at least both UTF-8 and UTF-16.
Strong agreement from me, for whatever value you wish to place on my opinion. UTF-8 is a preferable name to UNICODE. The case for distinguishing 7-bit from 8-bit latin1 seems much weaker. Tim -- ----------------------------------------------- Tim Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Proximity Pty Ltd http://www.proximity.com.au/ http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/rita_tim/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
