From: Philippe Verdy (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jul 19 2006 - 04:30:11 CDT
From: "Dean Harding" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Taking PhotoPlus as a starting point. I have several other examples and I
>> know quite a few others here are going through the pain of justifying why
>> we need Unicode (including myself).
> Um... I just downloaded version 6.0* of PhotoPlus, just for fun, and guess
> what? It's not a Unicode application - it has imports for the *A version of
> the Windows APIs, not the *W.
It is not strictly necessary to see the links to the *W APIs. The program may be linked staticaly to the *A APIs for compatibility with Win95/98/ME, but still contain dynamic linking at run time to call the *W APIs.
Also, even an application using only the *A APIs can be fully compatible with Unicode (using internal implementation of the Unicode algorithms, and drawing text using DirectX to select and draw glyphs, instead of displaying text with a simplified API;
Of course the GUI elements (menus, accelerateors and so on) may be restricted to the local "ANSI" codepage ("1250" to "1258", or one of the three CJK codepages "9xx") with each translation of the program working on a Windows system whose ANSI codepage matches the language (not all translations will be usable for all systems, limiting the possible changes of language in the same host). Generally this is not a very big limitation of the program, as users rarely need to support the same program localization on the same host, and their host is normally installed with a Windows version that matches their wanted language. But this limits the possibility to work with other foreign locales different from the user's default locale.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 19 2006 - 04:34:33 CDT