Yes it is. I use it in reference to Java because Java's surrogate/supplemental character support is quite limited. It is more accurate to describe it as UCS-2 support. This isn't to say that valid UTF-16 sequences are mangled in any way. Just that Java doesn't know what they are, really.
In this context, UCS-2 vs. UTF-16 is unimportant. Addison Addison P. Phillips Director, Globalization Architecture webMethods, Inc. 432 Lakeside Drive Sunnyvale, California, USA +1 408.962.5487 (phone) +1 408.210.3569 (mobile) ------------------------------------------------- Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature. > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefan Persson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 2:45 PM > To: Addison Phillips [wM]; Philippe de Rochambeau > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: UCS-2 and UTF-16 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Philippe de Rochambeau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Addison Phillips [wM]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 10:08 PM > Subject: Re: Problems converting from UTF-8 to UCS-2 and vice-versa using > JRun 3.1, SQL Server 2000, Windows 2000 and Java 3.1 > > > > String ucs2 = new String(byt, "UTF-8"); // turn them into a real > > > UCS-2 string > > > > Isn't UCS-2, UTF-16? > > Isn't UCS-2 the same as UTF-16 without surrogate support? > > Stefan > > _____________________________________________________ > Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail > Busenkelt! > >
