Lists Home |
Date Index |
>The nasty fact is that
>I suspect many Java application programmers will end up
>simply blowing off non-BMP text either through ignorance
>or based on a decision that it's not cost-effective.
It depends what they want to do with it. Won't they just end up
passing it through as pairs of surrogates?
Indeed, I thought that was the argument for UTF-16 all along; as
someone not a million miles from this discussion put it:
>The processor could still pass UTF-16 to the application
>as the 2 16-bit quantities d800, dc00, and in fact I suspect that
>UTF-16 is probably the way to go for the interface of a generic
>processor, since it would not require that the app be prepared
>to handle 4-byte characters.