RE: moving to unicode
I am afraid the problem is still there - hidden behind the functions and wrappers and makes the UTF-8 perform poorly compared to UCS2. The libc/Qt/whatever code will still have to do the nasty things I mentioned previously behind the scenes leading to performance/clarity/design inferiority.
There is just one big reason for UTF-8 - the ASCII compatibility. The rest is all disadvantages. Anyway, UTF-8 is better then nothing (ISO-88x) and there is a big friction of the ASCII Internet/world to changing things drastically. I would not dare to call UTF8 a modern system - it is a trade off between having UNICODE and the old ASCII at the same time and it is payed for by implementation uggliness and complexity.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROBERTOJIMENOCA@terra.es [mailto:ROBERTOJIMENOCA@terra.es]
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 3:57 PM
> To: Žáček Kryštof; debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: moving to unicode
>
> ?á?ek Kry?tof wrote:
> > I just second this. Only IMO the UCS2 (fixed two bytes per
> character) would be much more appropriate to a modern UNICODE
> system. The variable length (2 to 3 bytes ) UTF-8 encoding
> can marginally save some space (depending on language) but
> introduces nasty overhead to character handling - even the
> most trivial string functions have to check for character
> boundaries (e.g. even detecting the string length itself is
> not a trivial operation in UTF-8 !!! or having a fixed length
> buffer you can never tell in advance how many characters will
> fit into it - it depends on the language again).
> >
> > Windows used to have mulitbyte characters in the past
> (Win95,98) but luckily managed to get rid of this with
> Windows NT and higher and now both the kernel and userspace
> is UCS2. Why should Linux again enter the blind alley of Windows 95?
>
> You have to check some current sources.
> UTF-8 is the defacto modern encoding standard.
> There are lots of functions in current software libraries
> libc, glib, and QT that encapsulate all the string handling
> so the problems you mention don't exist.
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ROBERTOJIMENOCA@terra.es [mailto:ROBERTOJIMENOCA@terra.es]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 2:40 PM
> > > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> > > Subject: Re: moving to unicode
> > >
> > > Adam James wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 16:04 +0100, Lubos Vrbka wrote:
> > > > > is there any up-to-date document how to move a debian
> system to
> > > > > utf8 (both console and X)? i found some info on web,
> however it
> > > > > seems to be quite old (~4 years)... a pointer to a
> list of what
> > > > > doesn't work with
> > > > > utf8 would be really nice, too...
> > > >
> > > > I found the following documents helpful with regard to UTF-8:
> > > >
> > > > http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Make_your_system_use_unicode/utf-8
> > > >
> > > >
> http://hektor.umcs.lublin.pl/~mikosmul/computing/articles/linux-un
> > > > icode.html
> > >
> > > What is the current progress towards moving Debian fully to
> > > UTF-8 on installation as much as possible to easy users
> working in
> > > Debian?
>
>
>
> Prueba el Nuevo Correo Terra; Seguro, Rápido, Fiable.
>
>
Reply to: