On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote: > Chris, I hardly think Jim's last statement (which I presume is your target) > is egregious enough to start another junk subthread of 9 (now 10) posts. > Certainly '[citation needed]' is a pretty senseless comment. 'Citation' to > what, for what? It is well-known that Windows uses 2-byte words for unicode > coding. If you want a citation for that fact, find it yourself. > > What is not clear to me is whether Windows internally uses UCS-2, which only > codes BMP chars, and which would *not* be excellent, or UTF-16, which covers > all chars by using surrogates. I will guess the latter. More to the point, > even if MS uses a complete coding scheme internally (UFT-16), it does not, > as far as I know, make it fully available and usable to *me*, as I showed in > my response about code page 65001.
And what I'm more asking for is a clarification on how Win 7 is different from the previous Windowses. I know a lot did change from XP to 7 (I don't care which side of Vista the change happened, let's just compare the popular Windows with the popular Windows here), but I wasn't aware that anything to do with Unicode had changed there. Since jmf made the assertion in words which implied that Microsoft had now *and only now* produced such a system, I asked for a citation. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list