sorry for responding to an old thread - comment below. markus Chris Pratley wrote on 2000-oct-03: > Surrogate support was not turned on by default in Win2000 because the > Windows team was waiting for the standard to be finalized. It was also added > late, so to reduce the potential impact they had it off - a safe bet since > the standard was still 1+ years from completion. which standard? unicode 2.0 introduced surrogates in 1996. iso 10646-1 got amended with utf-16 in 1996, too. there was nothing new in the technical issues of how to deal with utf-16 since then. > Chris
- Re: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, e... Michael Everson
- Re: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, e... Roozbeh Pournader
- Re: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, e... Michael \(michka\) Kaplan
- RE: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, e... Chris Pratley
- RE: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, e... Jeff Hay-Roe
- RE: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, e... Chris Pratley
- Re: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, e... James Kass
- RE: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, e... Apurva Joshi
- RE: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, e... Carl W. Brown
- Re: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, e... Bob Hallissy
- Re: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, e... Markus Scherer
- Re: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, e... Michael \(michka\) Kaplan
- RE: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, e... John McConnell
- Re: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, e... Markus Scherer
- Re: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, e... Tex Texin
- RE: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, e... John McConnell
- RE: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, e... Murray Sargent