RE: More on the ASCII/Unicode support

[Ove Kaaven]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Steve Langasek wrote:

> I was under the impression, perhaps mistaken, that UTF16 also had some
> problems because the Unicode Consortium had opted to represent several
> different glyphs, superficially similar to someone unfamiliar with the
> language, with a single Unicode entry.

UTF16 is just an encoding, you are referring to the character set. But
sure, I've also heard that, but it's my understanding that most things
like that should be fixed with Unicode 3.0 (and will of course improve
even more in later releases). But anyway, don't tell me that all the
differing DBCSes over there are more compatible with each other than
the Unicode set is...