>Thanks for the link. That clarifies things a lot. So, for the OP, if you >are targeting Win2k, it would be a good idea to use UCS-2, not UTF-16, >with any wide API calls. XP and above should (according to Kaplan and >Chen) support UTF-16 for API calls.
W2k is clearly something of the past. But even if not, it would require you actually need to _encode_ high-plane character(s) to see the difference. Since the ANSI 8-bit data is already in, the "worst" it can be is in the 0x80..0xFF range, which always maps inside Unicode plane-0 regardless of ANSI codepage. This way it can't make any difference whether or not the target system supports UCS-2 only or UTF-16: we are guaranteed that the output of the ANSI to UTF-16 conversion won't ever need more than a single output word per input byte. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
