• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: "James Tauber" <jtauber@j...>, <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:29:27 -0800

At 06:04 AM 11/17/99 -0500, James Tauber wrote:
>UTF-16, however, only gives access to the equivalent of Unicode with the
>surrogate extension mechanism, ie the first 17 planes of the UCS.

Right, a mere million extra characters in excess of what we're using now.

This feels like a pretty low-risk option to me.  

In terms of actual usability, there's effectively no difference between
UTF-16 and UTF-8.  UTF-16 seems to be an easier sell in Japan for reasons
that I've not fully understood.

What's really happening, near as I can tell, is that C programmers use
UTF-8 and Java programmers use UTF-16, regardless of where they're from.

Fortunately, this particular conversion is easy and requires no tables. -T.

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: UTF-8 vs UTF-16...? (Was: Feeling good about SML)
    • From: Tony Graham <tgraham@m...>
  • Re: UTF-8 vs UTF-16...? (Was: Feeling good about SML)
    • From: "James Tauber" <jtauber@j...>
  • Re: UTF-8 vs UTF-16...? (Was: Feeling good about SML)
    • From: Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Towards an XML Parser Compliance Table Version:17-11-99-15:16
• Next by Date: Re: Parser compliance
• Previous by thread: Re: UTF-8 vs UTF-16...? (Was: Feeling good about SML)
• Next by thread: Re: UTF-8 vs UTF-16...? (Was: Feeling good about SML)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread