RE: My Querry
----- Original Message -----
From: Addison Phillips [wM]
To: Mike Ayers
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 8:15 PM
Subject: RE: My Querry
> Hi Mike,
> You misread my sentence, I think. I did NOT say that C language strings are
> compatible with UTF-8, but rather that the UTF-8 was
> designed with compatibility with C language "strings" (char*) in mind. The
> point of UTF-8 was actually to be compatible with Unix
> file
> systems, of course. But one stimulus for the encoding was so that the Plan9
> operating system wouldn't have to rewrite the C
> libraries to deal with UTF-16 (then UCS-2). In other words, my statement is
> quite correct about the design goals of FSS-UTF,
> UTF-8's progenitor. See for example:
> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs/utf-8-history.txt
> If you read carefully, you'll see the desire to protect the null and \ bytes.
Maybe, but if you read the unicode standards carefully you'll see they claim
compatibility of UTF-8 with ASCII.
Now, this implies that UTF-8 does interpret U+0000 as an ASCII NULL control
char.
This is incompatible with using it as a string terminator.
