Olivier Mascia wrote:

>Absolutely right. And look at the convolutions Microsoft did in Win32
>(XP versions at least) to add GB18030 over their 16 bits unicode
>representation. True, GB18030 will hit four bytes represented in UTF-8.
>But it will also hit 4 bytes represented in UTF-16. By now people will
>have understood I'm an advocate of UTF-8 as internal (db storage)
>universal representation of all strings. ;-)
>
>
>

If it hasn't been mentioned, UTF-8 and 16 bit Unicode are the two
representations supported in JNI (Java Native Interface).

I'm inclined to agree with Olivier and add the remote protocol (at least
the new one) to the list of places it should be used.

What do people think about moving code transformations from the server
to the client?

--

Jim Starkey
Netfrastructure, Inc.
978 526-1376