Re: Conformance (was UTF, BOM, etc)

From: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan (michka@trigeminal.com)
Date: Mon Jan 24 2005 - 11:59:16 CST

Next message: Philippe VERDY: "mapping invalid bytes to invalid code units in deserializers for internal processing"

Previous message: Arcane Jill: "Actually, this wasn't rhetorical"
In reply to: Peter Constable: "RE: Conformance (was UTF, BOM, etc)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

From: "Peter Constable" <petercon@microsoft.com>

> > Behalf Of Peter Kirk

> > Microsoft is not interested in console applications.
>
> I don't think I would make that claim.

Neither would I. But with that said, the single most important feature of
the console is backwards compatibility, which makes the bar for new features
pretty high.

MichKa

Next message: Philippe VERDY: "mapping invalid bytes to invalid code units in deserializers for internal processing"
Previous message: Arcane Jill: "Actually, this wasn't rhetorical"
In reply to: Peter Constable: "RE: Conformance (was UTF, BOM, etc)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 24 2005 - 11:58:50 CST