On 15/11/08 03:18, bill lam wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Dominique Pelle wrote:
>
>> In the second paragraph of ":help unicode", I read:
>>
>> <<
>> Unicode can be encoded in several ways. The two
>> most popular ones are UCS-2, which uses 16-bit
>> words and UTF-8, which uses one or more bytes
>> for each character.
>> I think this should be updated. The two most
>> popular ones are UTF-16 and UTF-8. From wikipedia,
>> "UCS-2 is an obsolete character encoding which is
>> a predecessor to UTF-16".
>>
>> Furthermore, strictly speaking, UCS-2 is not a
>> Unicode encoding, since it can only represent
>> characters in the Unicode page 0.
>>
>> UTF-16 and UCS-2 are too often confused with
>> each other. Let's not add to the confusion in Vim
>> help files.
>
> I didn't disagree to your proposal. But actually m$ itself does not
> use utf-16 in all its products. IIRC win9x/me use ucs-2 and vi$ta
> should utf-16. winxp sits in between, it used ucs-2 in the beginning
> and some patches were issued to make some component (eg chinese ime)
> utf-16 awared.
>
> I think that ucs-2 is still more popular than utf-16 in that the
> number of program of that support ucs-2 but not utf-16 is greater than
> that support utf-16. Anyway just a wild guess, who cares for utf-16.
>
Good question. Personally I prefer UTF-8 for full Unicode support, but
apparently Bill Gates made the opposite choice. Not that his choices
matter much to me nowadays.
Anyway, unless new bugs are found in the future, Vim has full support of
UTF-16 (be, le and BOM) since patchlevel 7.2.033.
Best regards,
Tony.
--
One reason why George Washington
Is held in such veneration:
He never blamed his problems
On the former Administration.
-- George O. Ludcke
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
