----- Original Message ----- From: "System Administrator" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 21:41 Subject: Undeliverable: Re: UTF8 vs AL32UTF8 > Your message > > To: Misha Wolf > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: UTF8 vs AL32UTF8 > Sent: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:45:46 +0700 > > did not reach the following recipient(s): > > Unicode on Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:41:46 +0700 > The message could not be delivered because you do not have create > permissions on this folder or it is only available to folder owners at this > time > The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=US;a= ;p=Tan Thien Nien > K;l=NDEXEX0106120441MV8X1594 > MSEXCH:MSExchangeMTA:INDEX-GP:NDEXEX > > >
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. Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: "Misha Wolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mark Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 10:20 Subject: Re: UTF8 vs AL32UTF8 > > > On 11/06/2001 16:18:15 Mark Davis wrote: > [...] > > > - Oracle could probably make a case for their name for UTF8 simply being an > > anachronism. After all, the original definition of UTF-8 did convert > > surrogate pairs as they are doing in what they call UTF8. > > Which original definition? > > Misha > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com > > Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual > sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be > the views of Reuters Ltd.
