"Andrei Alexandrescu" <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote in message news:hul65q$o9...@digitalmars.com... > On 06/08/2010 03:12 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> "Nick Sabalausky"<a...@a.a> wrote in message >> news:huktq1$8t...@digitalmars.com... >>> "Ruslan Nikolaev"<nruslan_de...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:mailman.128.1275979841.24349.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >>>> In addition, C# has been released already when UTF-16 became variable >>>> length. >>> >>> Right, like I said, C#/.NET use UTF-16 because that's what MS had >>> already >>> standardized on. >>> >> >> s/UTF-16/16-bit/ It's getting late and I'm starting to mix >> terminology... > > s/16-bit/UCS-2/ > > The story is that Windows standardized on UCS-2, which is the uniform > 16-bit-per-character encoding that predates UTF-16. When UCS-2 turned out > to be insufficient, it was extended to the variable-length UTF-16. As has > been discussed, that has been quite unpleasant because a lot of code out > there handles strings as if they were UCS-2. >
Ok, that's what I had thought, but then I started second-guessing, so I figured "s/UTF-16/16-bit/" was a safer claim than "s/UTF-16/UCS-2/".
