Re: UTF-8 and case-insensitivity

[H. Peter Anvin]

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.

	-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/