[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: C-Kermit + Unicode

To: linux-utf8@humbolt.geo.uu.nl
Subject: Re: C-Kermit + Unicode
From: Frank da Cruz <fdc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 99 11:36:35 EDT
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 11 Sep 1999 23:14:48 +0200 (CEST)
Reply-To: linux-utf8@humbolt.geo.uu.nl
Sender: owner-linux-utf8@humbolt.geo.uu.nl

> On Sat, 11 Sep 1999, Frank da Cruz wrote:
> > (You might ask why UCS-2 is allowed as a transfer character set --
> > why not stick with UTF-8?  It's because CJK can be represented
> > more compactly in UCS-2.)
> 
> But what is the advantage of UCS-2 compared to UTF-16 ? 
> 
I didn't want to make it seem as if there were any support for
surrogates and nonzero planes.  Of course when there are no surrogates,
UTF-16 *is* UCS-2, so since there are no nonzero planes defined yet I
could have called it UTF-16, but I'd rather err on the side of accuracy.

- Frank
-
Linux-UTF8:   i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive:      http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/

Prev by Date: Re: C-Kermit + Unicode
Next by Date: Re: C-Kermit + Unicode
Prev by thread: Re: C-Kermit + Unicode
Next by thread: Re: C-Kermit + Unicode
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread