Asmus Freytag writes:
(I presume it was Sandra Martin O'Donnell that wrote the first cited words).
> Yes, yes, I know UTF-8 and Unicode/UCS are universal
> >encodings, but from POSIX's point of view, that's irrelevant.
> >They're just encodings.
> That's just what's wrong with POSIX from the perspective of an implementer
> of the Unicode Standard. Unicode has well defined character semantics that
> are considered a property of the character itself and therefore not locale
> dependent. A shorthand notation to kick the standard library into supporting
> these is indeed called for. In an indirect way, it's analogous to the 'C'
> locale, with its minimal guarantees. A "Unicode" locale (or more correctly,
> the character type subset of a locale) seems a reasonable extension.
This is worked upon in the forthcoming 14652 standard in ISO.
> BTW, there is nothing that prevents anybody from supporting the character
> semantics discovered and catalogued by Unicode for other character sets (for
> the corresponding characters). There have been more than one implementation
> of Unicode's bidi-algorithm on top of 8-bit character sets, to give just one
That is also the way 14652 does it, it is defined on the repertoire
of 10646 but also aaplies to subrepertoires thereof.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:36 EDT