On 1/3/06, D. E. Evans wrote: >Bruno Haible wrote: > > This list contains no CPxxx encodings, in particular no WINDOWS-xxxx > encodings. Microsoft continues to extend these encodings over > and over again, with the result that, say, a text written today > in CP950 on a Windows-XP machine is not readable as CP950 on an > earlier version of the same OS. For this reason, the use of these > encodings for manpages would be suboptimal. > > Windows is on Unicode now, anyways. Stick with Unicode, and > ignore the rest of the Windows encodings.
This is unrealistic to say the least. The fact that MS Windows NT uses UCS2-LE for its internal representation of text and in the NTFS filesystem filename tables, (resorting to ugly hacks to let you believe you can actually hande files with a CJK name without trouble in an Western European setup untill you actually try it, believe me I have), has absolutely nothing to do with end user working environments. MS uses CP encodings for end-user interaction and that won't be changing in the forseeable future, AFAIK. If you can point me to the MSDN article that proves me wrong, I'll galdly eat my hat ;-). -- Pedro A. López-Valencia _______________________________________________ Groff mailing list Groff@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
