Re: Revised proposal for UTF-16

[MURATA Makoto <murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>]

Dan Kegel wrote:
> You know, they say that if it's too hard to document, maybe
> there's something wrong with it.
> 
> Perhaps the key is to ALWAYS send a BOM.  
> Then the language becomes exceedingly clear and simple.
> - Dan

I personally have no problems, but do Unicoders agree on this?

By the way, registration of UCS-2 and UCS-4 in 
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/character-sets 
are as below:

Name: ISO-10646-UCS-2
MIBenum: 1000
Source: the 2-octet Basic Multilingual Plane, aka Unicode
        this needs to specify network byte order: the standard
        does not specify (it is a 16-bit integer space)
Alias: csUnicode

Name: ISO-10646-UCS-4
MIBenum: 1001
Source: the full code space. (same comment about byte order,
        these are 31-bit numbers.
Alias: csUCS4

Makoto
 
Fuji Xerox Information Systems
 
Tel: +81-44-812-7230   Fax: +81-44-812-7231
E-mail: murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp