From: "Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Thu, 13 Sep 2001 12:52:04 -0700, Asmus Freytag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > utf-8 cannot as readily be used as internal format.
>
> It's as easy as UTF-16. Unless you want a broken implementation which
> treats surrogates as pairs of characters. It's as broken as treating
> multibyte sequences of UTF-8 as separate characters.
Actually, most "internal" mechanisms do not need cch calculations; for them
the count of code points is fine. Since you do not work much with platforms
that use it, I guess you would not have run across this fact?
> > Unicode limited to UTF-8 and UTF-32 would be a lot less attractive
> > and you would not have seen it implemented in Windows, Office
> > and other high volume platforms as early and as widespread as it
> > has been.
>
> I don't use Windows.
Well, perhaps you will recognize that there are one or two others in the
world who do? :-)
> I use UTF-8 much more often than UTF-16 (but still rarely).
Well, this is very nice for you -- but since you are clearly not using
platforms on which it would do you good, it does explain the bias? Luckily.
*Unicode* is big enough for everyone, though.
MichKa
Michael Kaplan
Trigeminal Software, Inc.
http://www.trigeminal.com/
