Re: UTF-8 and case-insensitivity

[H. Peter Anvin]

Followup to:  <4033974F.4090706@xxxxxxxxx>
By author:    "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Robin Rosenberg wrote:
> > 
> > I believe (please correct me if this is wrong) that Windows never actually
> > supported any of the UCS-2 code that were in conflict with UTF-16. The cost
> > of this operation was that some of the "private" code blocks of unicode 2.0, i.e. 
> > U+D800..U+DFFF were redefined as "surrogates" in Unicode 3.0 making the 
> > UTF-16 encoding more or less backwards compatible with UCS-2. And it's 
> > UTF-16LE and UCS-2LE, but I suspect you knew that :-)
> > 
> 
> Make that Unicode 1.0 and 1.1, and you're correct.
> 

Err, that was supposed to be 1.1 and 2.0.

Unicode 1.1 reshuffled the private use range from Unicode 1.0, in
order to make room for surrogates in Unicode 2.0.

UTF-16, what a horrible ugly hack.

	-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/