Colin Paul Adams wrote:
"Rich" == Rich Felker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rich> Indeed, this was what I was thinking of. Thanks for
Rich> clarifying. BTW, any idea WHY they brought the UTF-16
Rich> nonsense to DOM/DHTML/etc.?
I don't know for certain, but I can speculate well, I think.
DOM was a micros**t invention (and how it shows!). NT was UCS-2
(effectively).
AFAIK Unicode was originally only planned to be a 16-bit encoding.
the The Unicode Consortium and ISO 10646 then agreed to synchronize the
two standards - though originally Unicode was only going to be a 16-bit
subset of the UCS. A little after that Unicode decided to support UCS
characters beyond plane 0.
Anyway at the time NT was being designed (late eighties) Unicode was
supposed to be limited to < 65536 characers and UTF-8 hadn't been
thought of, so 16-bits probably seemed like a good idea.
--
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
