On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote: > Dnia wto 8. lipca 2003 05:22, Wu Yongwei napisał: > > > Is it true that "Almost all modern software that supports Unicode, > > especially software that supports it well, does so using 16-bit Unicode > > internally: Windows and all Microsoft applications (Office etc.), Java, > > MacOS X and its applications, ECMAScript/JavaScript/JScript, Python, > > Rosette, ICU, C#, XML DOM, KDE/Qt, Opera, Mozilla/NetScape, > > OpenOffice/StarOffice, ... "? > > Do they support characters above U+FFFF as fully as others? For Python I know
Yes. . At least, I know for sure Mozilla and MS IE, MS Office XP do. That does not make me a fan of UTF-16. You shouldn't assume that others don't do what you're not happy to deal with. The reason they use UTF-16 is NOT because it's inherently better than other UTF's(UTF-8, UTF-32) BUT because they (not all) began with UCS-2 and have a lot of baggages (written in UCS-2) to carry on. The prime example of this Win32 W API's. The same is true of Java, ECMAScript (the transition is not yet complete in case of ECMAScript), and Mozilla. (see http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=183156, for instance) In case of applications written with UTF-8 as the internal string representation (asked for in another posting), there are lots of them. Basically, most gnome/gtk applications do because glib and pango are based on UTF-8. Moreover, there's a programming language whose internal char. representation is UTF-8 as is well known. It's Perl. Besides, judging from the fact that Sun's iconv(3) implementation uses UTF-8 as a hub (instead of UTF-32 as is the case of glibc's iconv(3)), many programs in Solaris must be heavy users of UTF-8. Jungshik -- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
