From: Christopher Fynn (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Apr 22 2007 - 13:37:04 CST
> At the risk of being shot down in flames, as a Linux user I could
> suggest an answer -- one might describe Unicode support for a OS as the
> proportion of software that supports certain advanced features of
> Unicode out of the box. What is advanced changes with time. Regarding
> software the unicode supoort of the out of the box text editor, word
> processor, web browser, spread sheet and terminal is what I would
> usually look at first. When Mac OS updates then tend to update across
> the board, which means it always scores well on such criteria. Windows
> does not seem to do across the board updates, I am not sure why this is.
> The same could also be said of Linux, the cause being that Linux has
> many independent developers.
> Back in 2002 a good criteria was surrogate support at which point in
> time all the main applications on Mac OS supported surrogates, the same
> could not be said for Windows or Linux.
I seem to recall that Windows 2000 had support for Plane 1 characters...
(maybe not using surrogates since it didn't use UTF-8 as standard
And wasn't Windows NT was the first major OS with Unicode support?
Back in 1998 there was no other real choice for using Unicode (except
maybe Plan 9).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 22 2007 - 13:39:00 CST