In message <9906101251.AA09341@unicode.org>
> My suggestion does not violate cp1252, it only affects a Unicode codepoint
> that is never otherwise used inside a font, and the change does not affect
> anything outside the font. It has *no* bad side effects. The only user that
> would even realise that anything has changed is the one who understands
> Windows machinations with codepages and fonts well enough to recognise that
> something actually *worked* with the font when they expected it to be
> broken, e.g. they can get the euro glyph using 0x80 on Win95 even without
> the eurofix patch installed. I don't think there's anything "yucky" about
What's yucky about that is that they will start producing Unicode documents
with 0x80 as the euro glyph and spreading them around.
I've already had to put code like this in our web browser:
if (p == 'x' || p == 'X')
u = strtol(p, 16, NULL);
u = atoi(p);
if (u >= 0x80 && u <= 0x9F)
u = cp1252_table[u-0x80];
to cope with all the web sites that contain things like "it…s".
We really don't want to encourage that sort of thing. I haven't yet had
to put an equivalent bit of code in my UTF-8 or UCS-2 decoders, but I
wouldn't be surprised if I had to some time soon.
What's so hard about installing the euro patch anyway? Why give naive users
the opportunity to unknowingly do it wrong when it's easy to do it correctly?
-- Kevin Bracey, Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology plc Tel: +44 (0) 1223 725228 645 Newmarket Road Fax: +44 (0) 1223 725328 Cambridge, CB5 8PB, United Kingdom WWW: http://www.acorn.co.uk/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:46 EDT