Re: Registration of new charset: UTF-32

On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 09:52:17AM +0900, Martin Duerst wrote:
> At 19:15 01/05/20 +0200, Keld J$BS(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.

Keld

Received on Saturday, 26 May 2001 09:50:42 UTC