Re: UTF-8, ISO C Am.1, and POSIX

From: Asmus Freytag (
Date: Wed Aug 13 1997 - 17:01:43 EDT

At 09:07 AM 08/13/97 -0700, Keld J|rn Simonsen wrote:
> writes:
>> Standards are asked to support different behavior and philosophies.
>> You want something that makes Unicode pre-eminent. This being the
>> Unicode mailing list, there probably are lots of others who agree.
>I agree in principle with the Unicode people that character
>attributes are fixed. However, as Sandra writes, some people in
>the world disagree.
>The beauty of POSIX locales is that it can cater for both camps,
>you can do it differently from time to time, but you
>can also build a locale that fully adheres to Unicode specs.

What I was arguing for is not to disable those who view character properties
as part of a locale. That battle is lost. But those that DO want to rely on
the new consensus around the character properties discovered and catalogued
by Unicode are ill served today because, unlike the old 7 and 8-bit
character sets that the developers of the original POSIX specification had
in mind, Unicode can contain over one Million characters when all is said
and done. Providing a way to sidestep the need to repeatedly specify common
behavior for such a large character set would be a welcome innovation for
POSIX. I challenge the people maintaining the specification to come up with
a way of achieving this.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:36 EDT