a simple unicode question

[Gabriel Genellina]

RFC 3629:
"ISO/IEC 10646 and Unicode define several encoding forms of their
common repertoire: UTF-8, UCS-2, UTF-16, UCS-4 and UTF-32."


In other words, Unicode is "not related to any encoding" .. and yet the
UTF-8, UTF-16.. "encoding forms" are clearly "related" to Unicode.

How is that possible?

Start reading "The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely,
Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets (No Excuses!)", by
Joel Spolsky.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Unicode.html

 

[Tim Arnold]

Chris Jones wrote:
[..]

Best part of Unicode is that there are multiple encodings, right? ;-)

No, the best part about Unicode is there is no encoding!

Unicode does not define any encoding;

RFC 3629:

"ISO/IEC 10646 and Unicode define several encoding forms of their
common repertoire: UTF-8, UCS-2, UTF-16, UCS-4 and UTF-32."

what it defines is code-points for characters which is not related to
how characters are encoded in files or network transmission.

In other words, Unicode is "not related to any encoding" .. and yet the
UTF-8, UTF-16.. "encoding forms" are clearly "related" to Unicode.

How is that possible?

CJ

When I first saw it, my first thought was that the subjectline was an
oxymoron.

--Tim Arnold