• From: James Clark <jjc@j...>
• To: Richard Anderson <rja@a...>
• Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 19:34:59 +0700

Richard Anderson wrote:

> > If you feel that one needs to be mandated, I would pick UTF-16.
> 
> I second that.  The Vivid Creation SAX interfaces
>  http://www.vivid-creations.com/free/sax.h ) have been UTF-16 from day 1
>  around 16 months ago ) and to date they've had nothing but positive
> feedback.  I'd therefore make everything wchar_t and not char.

Unfortunately wchar_t isn't guaranteed to be UTF-16.  Some platforms
make it 32-bits.  However, I agree it's a good idea for SAXChar to be
typedefed to wchar_t on platforms where wchar_t is UTF-16.

James


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: SAX/C++: UTF-8 v UTF-16
    • From: Steinar Bang <sb@m...>

• References:
  • SAX/C++: C++-specific design principles
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: SAX/C++: UTF-8 v UTF-16
    • From: James Clark <jjc@j...>
  • Re: SAX/C++: UTF-8 v UTF-16
    • From: "Richard Anderson" <rja@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: A processing instruction for robots
• Next by Date: Re: SAX/C++: First interface draft
• Previous by thread: Re: SAX/C++: UTF-8 v UTF-16
• Next by thread: Re: SAX/C++: UTF-8 v UTF-16
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread