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
The comments to this entry are closed.
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
- Premature optimisation in my Rails session code?
- Charity Ruby Workshop at the Scottish Ruby Confererence
- Be careful using default_scope and order()
- A subtle potential bug in most Rails applications
- Smart constants
- Followup on the EMail Experiment
- So I'm trying an email experiment
- A business on the side…
- Pragmatic Bookshelf Royalty Rates
- Yet another piece of music
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