RE: My QuerryMike Ayers wrote > Addison Phillips Sent on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:14 AM >> That is, amoung other things >> UTF-8 was designed specifically to be compatible with C >> language strings. > > Wrong!
What is wrong? That UTF-8 (born FSS-UTF) was designed to be compatible with C language strings? Of course it was. Even more, it had to be compatible with the '/' codepoint, very important in Unix. Another problem entirelly is to determine if it _succeeded_ at this aim. > UTF-8 is fully compatible with ASCII, I do not know what does mean "fully compatible" in such a context. For example, ASCII as designed allowed (please note I did not write "was designed to allow") the use of the 8th bit as parity bit when transmitted as octet on a telecommunication line; I doubt such use is compatible with UTF-8. I do not object to your point about impossibility to represent NUL with C. But as you say, very often this is not an actual problem. Antoine
