On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 09:52:17AM +0900, Martin Duerst wrote: > At 19:15 01/05/20 +0200, Keld J$BS(Bn Simonsen wrote: > >You really should not do this. UCS-4 is the canonical representation of > >10646. UTF-32 would be misleading, as the UCS-4 is not a transformation > >format, > >but the "real thing". > > Which one? Little endian? Big endian? Or some cris-cross version? The default endianness of UCS-4 is wee defined. KeldReceived on Saturday, 26 May 2001 09:50:42 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 June 2006 15:10:51 GMT