[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: UTF-8 locales

On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 08:21:26PM +0900, Tomohiro KUBOTA wrote:
> I will agree with developers who dare to hard-code UTF-8 instead of 
> wchar_t, if they abolish the support of 8bit (or 7bit) encoding by the
> softwares which they develop.  I mean, if they need their (European-
> language speakers, in most cases) daily (i.e., 7 and 8bit) encodings
> (i.e., if they don't abolish the support of 7 or 8bit encodings), why
> do they choose not to support our daily encodings?

If we're talking on the encoding level, there's only one encoding - a
sequence of byte-sized characters. Most programs have no need to know
the difference between Latin-1 and Latin-3 and KOI8-R, and it's the
most trivial encoding to use. For my Unicode library, it took less
code to implement the generic support for byte encodings then it took
for any Unicode encoding, plus a table for each character set.

Unfortunetly, there are multiple CJK encodings, and there are multiple CJK
character sets for each encoding. As this is not a scratch I need to itch,
I'm not going to mess with increasing complexibilty to support it.

As for the reason I don't use wchat_t, not all the world works in C.
Most other languages have roll-your-own support for multi-byte character
sets or provide Unicode support.

David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Looking for a Debian developer in the Stillwater, Oklahoma area 
to sign my GPG key

Attachment: pgpqvmDpDeViq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: