[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 06/11/2001 10:45:46 PM Mark Davis wrote: > > [earlier] > > - 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. > > [now] > >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. > > The critical thing, though, is that in UTF-8 as originally designed, there > was no question about the meaning of < ED A0 80 ED B0 80 >, of < F0 90 80 > 80>, and whether either could mean U-00010000. They definitely did not mean > the same thing, and the former definitely did not mean U-00010000. So > Oracle would fail utterly if being judged on that basis. > If you convert < ED A0 80 ED B0 80 > into UTF-16, what does it mean then? I think definitely it means U-00010000. Regards, Jianping. > > - Peter > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Peter Constable > > Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International > 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA > Tel: +1 972 708 7485 > E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
begin:vcard n:Yang;Jianping tel;fax:650-506-7225 tel;work:650-506-4865 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:Server Gobalization Technology;Server Technology version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Senior Development Manager adr;quoted-printable:;;500 Oracle Packway=0D=0AM/S 659407;Redwood Shores;CA;94065; fn:Jianping Yang end:vcard
