Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:57:26 -0700 (PDT) | From | Alex Belits <> | Subject | Re: unicode (char as abstract data type) |
| |
On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> I really don't think it is wise to fight Sun, Microsoft, and Apple > on this. We could get screwed much worse than EBCDIC users are. > Incompatibility with the rest of the world is just not cool. > > The perfect time to switch is while adding 64-bit filesystem calls.
Neither Sun, nor Apple or Microsoft have really converted anything to Unicode. Having NTFS filesystem where filenames are already for many years supposed to be in Unicode, but used by all software with the assumption that only 8 bits of every character matter doesn't mean much, so this direction is dead, too.
> I certainly don't want to see 8-bit kernel calls on Merced.
Then you won't see vi there either.
> Just think about it: WE WILL BE ALONE.
"Everyone" either:
1. Uses local charset and doesn't mark it anywhere.
2. Uses locale and marks one charset as current.
3. Uses MIME and assumes that document bodies and header fields don't have mixed charsets within them.
4. Supports Unicode/UTF-8 strings display through a wrapper that uses local charsets (ex: Netscape).
5. Makes professional typesetting software that handles everything internally in a manner, no sane programmer wants to do in the OS.
-- Alex
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |