Tue, 16 May 2000 12:26:12 +0200 (MET DST), Frank Atanassow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> Of course, you can always come up with specialized schemes involving stateful
> encodings and/or "block-swapping" (using the Unicode private-use areas, for
> example), but then, that subverts the purpose of Unicode.
There is already a standard UTF-16 encoding that fits 2^20 characters
into 16bit space, by encoding characters >=2^16 as pairs of "characters"
from the range D800..DFFF, which are otherwise unused in Unicode.
Programmers should not be expected to care about this; most will not
anyway. Libraries will handle this format in external UTF-16-encoded
strings.
UTF-8 is usually a better choice for external encoding; UTF-16 should
be rarely used.
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk * [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://qrczak.ids.net.pl/
\__/ GCS/M d- s+:-- a23 C+++$ UL++>++++$ P+++ L++>++++$ E-
^^ W++ N+++ o? K? w(---) O? M- V? PS-- PE++ Y? PGP+ t
QRCZAK 5? X- R tv-- b+>++ DI D- G+ e>++++ h! r--%>++ y-
