RE: OS 99

From: Smita Desai (
Date: Thu Nov 12 1998 - 09:28:18 EST

Thanks Asmus for the clarifications. For someone struggling with the
decision of porting a Solaris 2..6 app to Unicode or wait out for
Solaris 7.0, it is quite misleading to say that the former supports
Unicode. Solaris 2.6 has only two native Unicode locales, namely US
English and Korean. And in all other cases, wide character does not
translate to a Unicode character.

My source code has more #ifdefs for Win 9x, Solaris and other Unix
flavors than the actual lines of code.

In any case, it would be a good idea if the Consortium were to define a
guideline in this respect.

Smita Desai
Software Engineer, Internationalization
InConcert, Inc.

Tel - 617.499.4427
Fax - 617.499.4409

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Asmus Freytag []
                Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 3:38 PM
                To: Unicode List
                Subject: RE: OS 99


                your comment is well taken. The mail in question was
probably not meant to
                go to go out on this wide an alias in this form. Last I
saw it, it was being
                circulated among knowledgeable people to try to gather
information on Unicode
                support in OS's, not in order to 'publish' a list of
compliant systems.

                "Unicode compliant" is a term that is fraught with
problems, because it is
                in fact not defined anywhere in the standard. "Unicode
conformant" is the
                legal term, however, we should not officially use it as
header on the table
                below, since the consortium are not certifying

                "Supports Unicode" is the informal term for attempting
to be Unicode
                conformant, but not implying the same guarantees that
"Unicode conformant"

                Unicode 'compliant' gets mistaken for Unicode
'conformant' too easily,
                which is bad. The chart should be entitled

                "Operating systems which support Unicode.

                Finally, I believe this is true for the Windows family.

>Windows NT all yes yes
>Windows CE yes yes
>Windows 95 no some *)
>Windows 98 no some *)
>Windows 2000 yes yes

                *) code set conversions and limited, low level text

                If anybody else has information on what to add here,
please send it
                to (not the whole list please). We are
                posting the table on our web site.

                BTW, if someone wants to sumamrize the browsers for us
in the same manner
                please send info to


                At 07:42 AM 11/10/98 -0800, you wrote:
>What are the criteria for making "Unicode compliant"?
Is it the ability
>to convert to and from or actual support in all
>In the list below, I see a lot of instances where the
latter would not
>work, e.g. Windows 9x, Solaris 2.6 etc.. Win 9x does
not have Unicode
>support for "all" APIs and Solaris 2.6 has no support
except for to/from
>conversion, at least as far as I know.
>Just curious,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julia Oesterle (Unicode)
> Sent: Monday, November 09, 1998 9:54
> To: Unicode List
> Subject: FW: OS 99
> Hi -- update help requested:
> > A year ago, the question of which OSs
were Unicode
>compliant was answered
> > and
> > we constructed the following chart:
> >
> > \OS Version
> > Sun Solaris 2.6
yes yes
> > IBM AIX 4.1x
yes no
> > IBM OS/2 4.1
no yes
> > IBM OS/400 3.7
no yes
> > SGI IRIX* 6.4
no no
> > Next Open Step
yes yes
> > Apple Rhapsody
yes yes
> > NetWare 4.x
no yes
> > Windows NT 4.x yes
> > Windows 95
no yes
> > Windows 98
no yes
> > Linux no
> > *(IRIX supports conversions between
UCS4, UCS2, UTF8 &
>other character
> > sets)
> >
> > Has this changed?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Julia Oesterle

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:42 EDT