Re: UTF8 vs AL32UTF8

[Michael \(michka\) Kaplan]

From: "Mark Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> UTF-8 was defined before UTF-16. At the time it was first defined, there
> were no surrogates, so there was no special handling of the D800..DFFF
code
> points.

In other words, Oracle has an alternate solution here for 9i -- they can
simply explain that the old product defined the old pre-surrogate UTF-8 and
the new product is now surrogate aware and uses the current definition.

This is the same tack taken by other companies that were not previously
doing special handling for supplementary characters, and certainly is a less
confusing answer than the naming scheme currently being planned by Oracle.

MichKa

Michael Kaplan
Trigeminal Software, Inc.
http://www.trigeminal.com/