- From: Taki Kamiya <tkamiya@us.fujitsu.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:19:42 -0700
- To: "'Melanie Stallings'" <ms.protrain@yahoo.com>, <public-exi@w3.org>
Hi Melanie, Sorry for the belated response. Section "7.1.10 String" of the spec describes how UCS code points are encoded in EXI format. http://www.w3.org/TR/exi/#encodingString Please take a look at the section and let me know if you have any questions. Hope it helps, -taki -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: public-exi-request@w3.org [mailto:public-exi-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Melanie Stallings Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: public-exi@w3.org Subject: RE: character encoding > > > Taki, > > Thank you for your response. I still have some questions. > > About the Universal Character Set, Wikipedia says: "The Universal Character Set > (UCS) is defined by the ISO/IEC 10646 International Standard as a character set > on which many encodings are based." > > My question revolves around the "on which many encodings are based" portion of > that sentence. As far as I can tell UCS does not contain any information on how > each character is to be encoded. > > About the ISO 10646 Wikipedia says: "ISO 10646 defines several character encoding > forms for the Universal Character Set." Some examples listed are USC-2, UCS-4, > UTF-8 and UTF-16. > > In your email you referred to the Unicode Character Database, but not a specific > encoding scheme. About Unicode Wikipedia says: "Unicode can be implemented by > different character encodings. The most commonly used encodings are UTF-8 > (which uses 1 byte for all ASCII characters, which have the same code values as > in the standard ASCII encoding, and up to 4 bytes for other characters)". > > I have to laugh at myself. It's likely that Wikipedia may not be the best source > for my "education" on character set / character encoding. > > I had my fingers crossed that your answer to my original question would be > "Ah, yes. Use the UTF-8 encoding." That's what we use internally in our product. > Oh how convenient that would be! > > I hope I am effectively communicating my question. Please help set me straight. > > Sincerely, > > Melanie >
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2008 23:20:26 UTC