Hi John,
>Microsoft never seems to clearly identify whether the wide APIs should >be given UTF-16 or UCS-2. Their guide on internationalization would seem >to suggest that UCS-2 must be used, however, there is some reason to >believe that perhaps UTF-16 is handled correctly as well. Couldn't find >anything reliable one way or the other though. (Though there are plenty >of folks taking whichever position, so at least I'm not the only one >who's confused now.) Don't worry: we're all confused with MS wording! For what I understand having also myself tried to sort out the question, is that there is a line drawn: before XP unicode support included was nothing else than UCS-2 (W2K). Xp and post-XP system include Unicode 5.1 and use UTF-16 encoding. This is from 2005: http://blogs.msdn.com/michkap/archive/2005/05/11/416552.aspx But you're right to say that the situation isn't completely clear and MS being quite sneaky about this doesn't help clear the mud. It's also true that MS products, including OSes, are produced by distincts teams each having their objectives and schedules (agendas?). It is impossible to expect that there is a single date to UTF-16 generalization within all MS products (even OSes). So even now, full UTF-16 compliance is possibly uncertain in some part of some supported system. Nonetheless XP and later should have no problems for the usage the OP was talking about (having ANSI data stored as raw bytes in an UTF-8 caddie). OTOH, this is still mostly academic since I believe the number of western peecees having fonts able to display planes > 0 Unicode, _AND_ running applications where it makes a difference is still probably very low. But it will rapidly be of central importance with the quickly populating upper Unicode planes (> 0), the need for more exchanges with Asia and also ancient document digitalization. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
