> > I don't buy it. If current conversion tables does the right
> > thing, why we need to replace. Or if conversion tables are
> > not correct, why don't you fix it? I think the rule of
> > character conversion will not change frequently, especially
> > for LATIN languages. Thus maintaining cost is not too high.
>
> I never said we need to, but if we're going to implement ICU,
> then we might as well go all the way.
So you admit there's no benefit using ICU for replacing existing
conversions?
Besides ICU does not support all existing conversions, I think ICU has
serious flaw for using conversion. If I understand correctly, ICU uses
UNICODE internally to do the conversion. For example, to implement
SJIS->EUC_JP conversion, ICU first converts SJIS to UNICODE then
converts UNICODE to EUC_JP. Problem is these conversion is not roud
trip(conversion between SJIS/EUC_JP and UNICODE will lose some
information). Thus SJIS->EUC_JP->SJIS conversion using ICU does not
preserve original text.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
