At 12:34 PM -0400 7/17/02, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 12:13:47PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> I thought Java used UTF-16. It's a variable-width encoding, so it
>> should be fine. (Though I bet a lot of folks will be rather surprised
>> when it happens...)
>UTF-16 isn't technically a variable-width encoding, since
>surrogate codes are still considered single characters - even
>though they only have meaning when combined in pairs. It's much
>the same as multiple combining characters coming together to represent
>a single abstract entity that is also not really a "character"; the
>chief difference is that surrogates don't mean anything at all on their own.
Yeah, I see that's how the standard defines it, but... Looks like a
serious dodge to me. :)
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
