nanogui@linuxhacker.org

My memory isn't what it should be... To follow up to myself.. That should
be UCS-2 and UCS-4, not UCS-16 and UCS-32... ;) UCS-4 is almost interchangable
with UTF-32, which is the correct Unicode term for the 32 bit representation
(UCS-4 is ISO lingo... Argh..)

Vidar.


On 21 Mar 2000 20:30:35 -0000 vidar@hokstad.com wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 18:43:21 +0000 Morten Rolland <mortenro@screenmedia.no> 
>>For Unicode-32, I was thinking the scalar function could come in
>>handy, but now I'm not even sure there is such a thing as
>>Unicode-32; although I would not be surprised if it contained
>>the scalar values, or code-points or whatever they are called
>
>Unicode can be represented either as UCS-16 (16 bit unicode *only*),
>UCS-32 (the full 32 bit Unicode set), *or* as one of the multibyte
>encodings UTF-7, UTF-8 and UTF-16. UCS-16 and UCS-32 values are the
>"raw" glyph numbers, and will always be 16 bit or 32 bit.
>
>UTF-7, UTF-8 and UTF-16 all use one or more (depending on value)
>7, 8 or 16 bit characters to represent one UCS-32 value. So UTF-7,8
>and 16 are all just different ways to encode 32 bit unicode glyphs.
>
>The only format to really avoid is UCS-16, since it can't contain the
>full Unicode glyph set...
>
>Vidar.

-- 
Get your firstname@lastname email for FREE at http://NamePlanet.com