In a message dated 2001-06-05 10:25:17 Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Normally a strcmp function just loops through the string comparing them > character by character. If the loop checks for surrogates and compares > UTF-32 code points you will always get the same result for all encoding, the > standard Unicode code point order. > > Ultimately this is the "do it right the first time" way of implementing > Unicode. This is what I've been trying to say all along. Define your own meaning of "sorted" and go with that; don't ask the standardizers to put their blessing on a weird sort order. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
- RE: UTF-8S (was: Re: ISO vs Unicode UTF-8) Misha . Wolf
- Re: UTF-8S (was: Re: ISO vs Unicode UTF-8) Mark Davis
- Re: UTF-8S (was: Re: ISO vs Unicode UTF-8) Michael \(michka\) Kaplan
- Re: UTF-8S (was: Re: ISO vs Unicode UTF-8) Peter_Constable
- Re: UTF-8S (was: Re: ISO vs Unicode UTF-8) Markus Scherer
- RE: UTF-8S (was: Re: ISO vs Unicode UTF-8) Carl W. Brown
- Re: UTF-8S (was: Re: ISO vs Unicode UTF-8) Peter_Constable
- Re: UTF-8S (was: Re: ISO vs Unicode UTF-8) Peter_Constable
- Re: UTF-8S (was: Re: ISO vs Unicode UTF-8) Mark Davis
- Re: UTF-8S (was: Re: ISO vs Unicode UTF-8) Peter_Constable
- Re: UTF-8S (was: Re: ISO vs Unicode UTF-8) DougEwell2
- Re: UTF-8S (was: Re: ISO vs Unicode UTF-8) DougEwell2
- RE: UTF-8S (was: Re: ISO vs Unicode UTF-8) Carl W. Brown
- Re: UTF-8S (was: Re: ISO vs Unicode UTF-8) Mark Davis
- Fw: UTF-8S (was: Re: ISO vs Unicode UTF-8) Mark Davis

