Re: UTF-8 and case-insensitivity

H. Peter Anvin
2004-02-18T20:01:09Z

Followup to: <4033974F.4090706@zytor.com>
By author: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> 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.
>

Err, that was supposed to be 1.1 and 2.0.

Unicode 1.1 reshuffled the private use range from Unicode 1.0, in
order to make room for surrogates in Unicode 2.0.

UTF-16, what a horrible ugly hack.

-hpa