Re: UTF-8S (was: Re: ISO vs Unicode UTF-8)

["Michael \(michka\) Kaplan" <michka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: "Marco Cimarosti" <marco.cimarosti@xxxxxxxxxx>

> No, please, let's not make waters more muddied than they already are.
Let's
> keep on calling Oracle's proposal "UTF-8S", as there is no point in
finding
> a cuter name for it.

Fair enough.

> Wrong point! Perhaps it will not hurt applications which read text from
> UTF-8 files and store it in UTF-16 strings.

Well, in this case, there are implementations who do this and it *is*
documented as legal for a parser to do. Sorry if it messes up future
implementations, but someone is going to get hurt here -- and between the
two UTF-16 has been around/accepted longer and has more implementations.

I still think it is best not to do anything with the format at all, I was
just pointing out why official recognition may not be necessary (reason
#623).

MichKa

Michael Kaplan
Trigeminal Software, Inc.
http://www.trigeminal.com/


-
Linux-UTF8:   i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive:      http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/