On Tue, Jul 18, 2000 at 08:47:41PM -0800, Doug Ewell wrote:
Not even CLOSE to a complete list. From the forthcoming(1) bestseller
"The Quadrature of Unicode":
UTF-1: F7 64 4C
UTF-7: 2B 2F 76 38 2D"+/v8-"
UTF-7d5: BF FB FF
UTF-8C1: BB ED DF
UTF-9: 93 FD
of this list, only UTF-EBCDIC is a viable encoding form.
the others are either deprecated, never made it beyond draft, or are unofficial
discussion pieces that never made it anywhere (i proposed one of them :-).
if you detect all the big- and little-endian boms for the standard forms
utf-8,
Markus Scherer wrote:
of this list, only UTF-EBCDIC is a viable encoding form.
the others are either deprecated, never made it beyond draft,
or are unofficial discussion pieces that never made it
anywhere (i proposed one of them :-).
Please notice that at least one of these has never even
David Starner asked:
On Tue, Jul 18, 2000 at 08:47:41PM -0800, Doug Ewell wrote:
Not even CLOSE to a complete list. From the forthcoming(1) bestseller
"The Quadrature of Unicode":
UTF-1: F7 64 4C
UTF-7: 2B 2F 76 38 2D"+/v8-"
UTF-7d5: BF FB FF
UTF-8C1:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 08:13:41AM -0800, Markus Scherer wrote:
of this list, only UTF-EBCDIC is a viable encoding form.
the others are either deprecated, never made it beyond draft, or are unofficial
discussion pieces that never made it anywhere (i proposed one of them :-).
if you detect
5 matches
Mail list logo
