On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 10:56:30AM -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote: > > Since the U in UTF stands for Unicode, UTF-32 cannot represent more than > what Unicode encodes, which is is 1+ million code points. Otherwise, you're > talking about UCS-4. But I > thought that one of the latest revs of ISO 10646 explicitely specified that > UCS-4 will never encode more than what Unicode can encode, and thus > definitely these 4 billion characters you're alluding to. As far as I know the U in UTF stands for Universal - not unicode. ISO 10646 can encode characters beyond UTF-16, and should retain this capability. There is a proposal to restrict UTF-8 to only encompas the same values as UTF-16, but UCS-4 still encodes the 31-bit code space. Kind regards Keld
- RE: UTF8 vs. Unicode (UTF16) in code Ienup Sung
- Re: UTF8 vs. Unicode (UTF16) in code Michael \(michka\) Kaplan
- Re: UTF8 vs. Unicode (UTF16) in code Ienup Sung
- RE: UTF8 vs. Unicode (UTF16) in code Marco Cimarosti
- Re: UTF8 vs. Unicode (UTF16) in code Antoine Leca
- RE: UTF8 vs. Unicode (UTF16) in code Peter_Constable
- RE: UTF8 vs. Unicode (UTF16) in code Thomas Chan
- RE: UTF8 vs. Unicode (UTF16) in code Marco Cimarosti
- RE: UTF8 vs. Unicode (UTF16) in code Ayers, Mike
- RE: UTF8 vs. Unicode (UTF16) in code Yves Arrouye
- Re: UTF8 vs. Unicode (UTF16) in code Keld Jørn Simonsen
- Re: UTF8 vs. Unicode (UTF16) in code Allan Chau
- RE: UTF8 vs. Unicode (UTF16) in code Peter_Constable
- Re: UTF8 vs. Unicode (UTF16) in code Ienup Sung
- RE: UTF8 vs. Unicode (UTF16) in code Ayers, Mike
- Re: UTF8 vs. Unicode (UTF16) in code Antoine Leca
- Re: UTF8 vs. Unicode (UTF16) in code Ienup Sung
- RE: UTF8 vs. Unicode (UTF16) in code Thomas Chan
- Re: UTF8 vs. Unicode (UTF16) in code Yves Arrouye
- RE: UTF8 vs. Unicode (UTF16) in code John H. Jenkins
- RE: UTF8 vs. Unicode (UTF16) in code John H. Jenkins