On 10/5/07, Mattias Gaertner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:00:41 +0800 > Paul Ishenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: > > > Does this mean UTF-8 was chosen only because it is more compatible > > > with existing pascal programs? Any other reasons? > > > > > > > Is UTF-16 cover all languages? As I know it have problems with > > Chinese and/or Japanese languages. While utf-8 doesnot have such > > problems. More over most software uses English as default language. > > UTF-8 encoded English words are still the same as non-encoded English > > words. > > > > Btw, I dont know other advantages. > > UTF-8, UTF-16 and UTF-32 are just different encodings for the same > unicode characterset. > > UTF-16 is often confused with UCS-2, which is indeed only 2-byte > characters and has the widestring advantage (length=#words). But > for the price, that it does not support all characters. That's why M$ > switched from UCS-2 to UTF-16 keeping the W functions, which may be one > of the main reasons for the confusion.
As far as I know the Unicode organization no longer support in UCS-2 and recommend that any implementation of such encoding will be used as UTF-16. Another issue, is that on UTF-8 I think that some of the languages such as Korean and Japanese does not include all of the symbols it requires, but I'm not sure. I believe that all the encoding should be supported, and be used according to the way that the developers of the software will decide rather then to "force" them in choosing specific encoding. > > > Mattias > Ido -- http://ik.homelinux.org/ _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
