2012/8/23 Hans-Peter Diettrich <drdiettri...@aol.com>: > Daniël Mantione schrieb: > >> Op Wed, 22 Aug 2012, schreef Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho: >> >>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Martin Schreiber <mse00...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I am not talking about Unicode. I am talking about day by day >>>> programming of >>>> an average programmer where the live is easier with utf-16 than with >>>> utf-8. >>>> Unicode is not done by using pos() instead of character indexes. >>>> I think everybody knows my opinion, I stop now. >>> >>> >>> Please be clear in the terminogy. Don't say "live is easier with >>> utf-16 than with utf-8" if you don't mean utf-16 as it is. Just say >>> "live is easier with ucs-2 than with utf-8", then everything is clear >>> that you are talking about ucs2 and not true utf-16. >> >> >> That is nonsense. >> >> * There are no whitespace characters beyond widechar range. This means you >> can write a routine to split a string into words without bothing about >> surrogate pairs and remain fully UTF-16 compliant. > > > How is this different for UTF-8? >
There are white space charaters beyond the char range, for example U+00A0 no-break space. So in UTF8 a white space character can be larger than 1 byte, in UTF-16 they are all 2 bytes. That is the difference. Vincent _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel