Re: utf
Nicolas George wrote:
> No, the length of the string is hardly relevant, and when it is it is
> not enough anyway.
@Nicolas, I think OP does not understand you - perhaps it is not worth the
effort. My impression is that you refer to a string (properly) as sequence
of bytes and other refer to it as number of chars, which is not consistant
with utf.
>From my work with UTF, it is possible but not satisfying to guess encoding.
I wonder why no one suggested a kind of markup (xml) instead of byte
delimiter.
And regarding the mbox thing, well mbox was depreciated for many reasons. I
guess if it was that good it wouldn't be depreciated.
@OP, at some point of time everyone has to redesign and reimplement because
technology evolves and all the tools listed can be updated to the new
format.
Recent example of redesign I worked with is gnupg - huge changes from v1.x
to v2.1
regards
Reply to:
- References:
- utf
- From: mess-mate <mess-mate@gmx.com>
- Re: utf
- From: Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz>
- Re: utf
- From: Andre Majorel <aym-naibed@teaser.fr>
- Re: utf
- From: Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk>
- Re: utf
- From: Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz>
- Re: utf
- From: Nicolas George <george@nsup.org>
- Re: utf
- From: Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org>
- Re: utf
- From: Nicolas George <george@nsup.org>