From: jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu   
      
   On 2025-12-24 01:17, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:   
   > On Tue, 18 Nov 2025 14:27:53 -0500, James Kuyper wrote:   
      
   Sorry for the delay in my response. We spent the last week in Orlando,   
   without access to usenet.   
      
   >> Could you identify which document guarantees that every Unicode locale   
   >> contains "UTF-8"?   
   >   
   > How else would it work? ...   
      
   I think you're missing the point of my question. Take a look at the list   
   from my message - none of the locales on my system have names that   
   contain "UTF-8". Most of them contain "utf8" instead, and many have neither.   
      
   As I mentioned in my last message, there are also many different   
   possible encodings for Unicode. MS has used both UCS-2 and UTF-16.   
   Chinese government systems use GB18030. Would you expect locales using   
   those encodings to have names that contained "UTF-8"?   
      
      
   > ...Bytes have to be 8-bit.   
      
   Incorrect - the only requirement is that CHAR_BIT >= 8. There are real   
   systems where CHAR_BIT == 16. There have been real machines where   
   CHAR_BIT==9 would have been the most reasonable option.   
      
   I'm not sure why you mentioned that, however. Why do you think it's   
   relevant? UCS-2 and UTF-16 have no problem existing on machines with   
   8-bit bytes; they just occupy two such bytes. UTF-32 would occupy 4 of them.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)