In our previous episode, Dani?l Mantione said: > > as I know D2009 (I think) handles this correctly, but I have no idea > > how. > > Let me put it like this: Someone writing a Russian/Arabic/Japanese spell > checker does not have to handle surrogates with UTF-16, but he does with > UTF-8, i.e. UTF-16 is much better for them than UTF-8.
Are you sure? There is a CJK plane above $FFFF. Afaik these are non simplified glyphs used for titles etc. Less than normal script, but not that rare. > Someone writing a spell checker for old-Egyptian Hieroglyphs will have to > deal with surrogates. For those people UTF-16 has few advantages over > UTF-8, (allthough in practice it's still a bit easier to handle than UTF-8). IMHO such assumptions can be made for end user businesscode. (and only if the CJK pages above $FFFF are ancient and not in modern use), however the RTL and other libraries should be simply unicode complaint. Period. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
