James Youngman wrote: > Is there a reason not to just use ICU (http://icu.sourceforge.net/)?
ICU is complex code everywhere. It's IMO impossible to do a security audit of ICU. Where functions with 600 lines of code are an exception in gnulib (the striconveh module has such a function indeed), they are the regular coding style in ICU. (*) Probably this is because ICU emphasises flexibility, extensibility and research on new Unicode topics. Whereas libiconv and gnulib emphasise simplicity of use, and are willing to hardcode special cases. That said, I'm very thankful that ICU exists and is open-source. Bruno (*) I also prefer ext3 over ReiserFS for the same reason.
