Versions up until Windows 2000 use UCS-2 internally. 2000 and XP use UTF-16, although applications tend to have differing levels of awareness about surrogates.
Regardless of whether UCS-2 or UTF-16 is used, Microsoft documentation always refers to any unicode encoding as 'Unicode'. I attribute this to the same magical field that makes otherwise sensible people say things like 'a Unicode character is a 16-bit number' or 'UTF-8 is an efficient way to store text'. Benjamin On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 10:06:07 +0530, "Mahesh T. Pai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Dan Smith said on Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 03:04:22PM -0500,: > > > 1) The documentation we've found for Unicode support in Windows seems vague on > > how Unicode is implemented. A good deal of it seems to imply that a character > > is always represented by exactly two bytes, no more, no less, under all > > conditions. And the specific term UTF-16 doesn't seem to be employed. Precisely > > what Unicode encoding is employed by Windows (specifically Win2K, Windows > > Server 2003, and WinXP)? Is it, in fact, UTF-16, including the use of surrogate > > pairs? Or is it something older, or a subset, or some Microsoft variation, > > restricted to 65,536 characters? > > Should'nt this be asked on one of Microsoft's forums?? > > I am interested in the answers, though. > > > -- > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ > > Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M., > 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road, > Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, > Kerala, India. > > http://paivakil.port5.com > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ > -- Benjamin Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
