[fdo] UTF-16 support ?

[Scott James Remnant]

On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 13:47 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 13:37 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > >
> > > > UTF-8 can encode all of the UCS-4 code points, however there is
> > > > significant overhead in the later planes turning a 4-byte UCS-4 sequence
> > > > into 6 or 7 byte character sequences.
> > >
> > > This is not true.  UTF-8 encodes all valid Unicode characters in
> > > at most 4 octets.
> > >
> > No, it is true, but what you said is true also.
> >
> > "all of the UCS-4 code points" is a greater set than "all valid Unicode
> > characters".
> 
> Sure, we are both right.  By "that's not true" I meant
> "significant overhead of UTF-8" is not true, for Unicode usage of
> course :-).
> 
Aye. I was trying to avoid dissing UTF-16 for being totally pointless
and just give the technical answer <g>

Scott
-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://freedesktop.org/pipermail/freedesktop/attachments/20040615/b8c31b34/attachment.pgp