×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
David Gibbs wrote:
Actually, DBCS is *NOT* 16bit Unicode.
I did *NOT* say that DBCS *IS* 16-bit Unicode. I said that this
particular *instance* of DBCS fields is *probably* 16-bit Unicode, which
*IS* one of the possibilities (and *at least two* of the valid code
pages) for type-G DBCS fields, and probably the MOST COMMON one for new
work.
I speak from experience: some years ago, I made QuestView Unicode-aware.
If a particular type-G field uses a 16-bit Unicode codepage, QuestView
now handles it fairly transparently, given the limitations of SBCS
terminals. Other DBCS codepages, it does not.
And as to the so-called controversy, BOTH usages of "DBCS" are correct,
as BOTH usages of the term refer to characters being encoded at 16 bits
each. Limiting it to one usage or the other is NEVER correct.
--
JHHL
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
