Title: RE: My Querry
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark E. Shoulson
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 8:43 PM
Why is it that even simple questions asked about
straightforward aspects of Unicode somehow mutate into
There is nothing straightforward
At 04:23 PM 11/23/2004, Chris Jacobs wrote:
Now, this implies that UTF-8 does interpret U+ as an ASCII NULL
control char.
This is incompatible with using it as a string terminator.
Except that it's up to you how to interpret the C0 control codes in Unicode.
You can do it according to ISO 6429
If you are writing a C program, then the null character can be used to indicate
the end of a string.
One of the nice things about UTF-8 is that the ASCII bytes from 0 to 7F hex
(including the C0 control characters from \x00 through \x01f---including NULL)
represent the ASCII characters from 0
Title: RE: My Querry
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Addison Phillips [wM]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:14 AM
One of the nice things about UTF-8 is that the ASCII bytes
from 0 to 7F hex (including the C0 control characters from
\x00 through
Harshal Trivedi asked:
How can i make sure that UTF-8 format string has terminated while
encoding it, as compared to C program string which ends with '\0'
(NULL) character?
You don't need to do anything special at all when using UTF-8
in C programs, as far as string termination goes. UTF-8
Title: RE: My Querry
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Harshal Trivedi
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 3:42 AM
How can i make sure that UTF-8 format string has terminated
while encoding it, as compared to C program string which ends
with '\0'
(NULL
Title: RE: My Querry
(B
(B
(BHi Mike,
(B
(BYou misread my sentence, I think. I did NOT say that C language strings
(Bare compatible with UTF-8, but rather that the UTF-8 was designed with
(Bcompatibility with C language "strings" (char*) in mind. The
(Bpoint of UTF-8 wa
From: Antoine Leca [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I do not know what does mean fully compatible in such a context. For
example, ASCII as designed allowed (please note I did not write was
designed to allow) the use of the 8th bit as parity bit when transmitted
as
octet on a telecommunication line; I doubt such
Philippe Verdy écrivit:
From: Antoine Leca [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For example, ASCII as designed allowed (please note I did not write
was designed to allow) the use of the 8th bit as parity bit when
transmitted as octet on a telecommunication line; I doubt such use is
compatible with UTF-8.
The
RE: My Querry
(B- Original Message -
(BFrom: Addison Phillips [wM]
(BTo: Mike Ayers
(BCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(BSent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 8:15 PM
(BSubject: RE: My Querry
(B
(B
(B Hi Mike,
(B
(B You misread my sentence, I think. I did NOT say that C language strings
Mike Ayers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is wrong? That UTF-8 (born FSS-UTF) was designed to be
compatible with C language strings?'
Yes. A character encoding can be compatible with ASCII or C
language strings, but not both, as those two were not compatible to begin
with.
Why is it that even simple questions asked about straightforward aspects
of Unicode somehow mutate into hairsplitting arguments about who exactly
meant what and which version does which...? I'm glad I didn't ask this
question here!
~mark
Philippe Verdy verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr wrote:
By saying UTF-8 is fully compatible with ASCII, it says that any
ASCII-only encoded file needs no reencoding of its bytes to make it
UTF-8.
Note that this is only true for the US version of ASCII (well, ASCII
is normally designating
Antoine Leca scripsit:
Sorry, no: there is no requirement to clear it.
You are assuming something about the way data are handled. When you handle
ASCII data using octets, you can perfectly, and conformantly, keep some
other data (being parity or whatever) inside the 8th bit; so with even
14 matches
Mail list logo
