At 11:13 AM +0200 6/25/01, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>Hallo.
>
>I am one of those who started this childish joke of introducing implausible
>"UTF-..." acronyms at nearly every post.
>
>I found that the joke is getting very fun but also that it may be starting
>confusing people, so I fill compelled to quit joking for a moment and make
>clear which ones are the real UTF's and which ones aren't.
>
>Warning: unlike most of my messages this is deadly serious! This is the
>actual situation of UTF's.
>
>
>1) UTF-8, UTF-16 and UTF-32 are the only three real EXISTING Unicode
>Transformation Formats. They are official and part of the Unicode standard.
>
What about ISO-10646-UCS-2 and ISO-10646-UCS-4 as used in XML? Where
do they fit in? Are they only part of ISO-10646 and not Unicode? or
are they identical to UTF-16 and UTF-32? or something else?
--
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Writer/Programmer |
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| The XML Bible, 2nd Edition (Hungry Minds, 2001) |
| http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/books/bible2/ |
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764547607/cafeaulaitA/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ |
| Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
