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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dvdeug.dhis.org Looking for a Debian developer in the Stillwater, Oklahoma area to sign my GPG key
pgpNQ5DFBNoq7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
