I've heard of about 10% of these...
What an amazing piece of work.
« What's on my mind... | Main | Ruby 1.9 can check your indentation »
December 10, 2008
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c41c69e20105365a567f970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Names of encodings built in to Ruby 1.9:
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Now in Beta
Pragmatic Stuff
- The Pragmatic Programmers
Where you'll find information about us and the books that we publish. - Andy's Blog
Andy speaks! - CodeKata
Getting good at a discipline requires practice. Over on the CodeKata blog you'll find challenges to hone your developer skills.
Pragmatic Books
Recent Posts
Photos
- www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from pragdave tagged with pragdave_badge. Make your own badge here.
Site Search
- Google Search
Why not simply link to IBM's ICU? You'll get all the encodings you will ever need... Why reinvent the will over and over again? :)
Posted by: Dmitrii 'Mamut' Dimandt | December 11, 2008 at 02:40 AM
... the wheel ...
of course, silly me
Posted by: Dmitrii 'Mamut' Dimandt | December 11, 2008 at 02:41 AM
Hmm, afaik UTF-16 != UCS-2. The first one can have 2 or 4 bytes while the latter always has 2 bytes. Anyone can confirm this?
Posted by: Marius | December 11, 2008 at 04:01 AM
I concur: UCS-2 is the full Unicode version 2 set encoded in two bytes per character; UTF-16, like UTF-8, is a variable-length encoding for the full UCS-4 (31-bit, Unicode version 4) set, just a bit bulkier as it's multiples of two bytes rather than one... so they are different, but quite possibly UTF-16 is a clean superset of UCS-2 and obviously in a great many cases (presumably the bottom 32,768 code points) they'll look exactly the same.
Confusingly, it seems that UTF-32 is defined as being the same at UCS-4, but I think the Unicode consortium are pretty confident that they'll never need more than 4 billion code points, even with it segmented into chunks.
Posted by: Jim Driscoll | December 15, 2008 at 06:20 PM