Re: MS Windows and Unicode 4.0 ?

From: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan (michka@trigeminal.com)
Date: Mon Dec 01 2003 - 23:51:56 EST

  • Next message: Peter Constable: "RE: MS Windows and Unicode 4.0 ?"

    I know I'll end up regretting this....

    From: "Philippe Verdy" <verdy_p@wanadoo.fr>

    > That far? So why isn't there correct support of UTF-16 on Windows
    > 95OSR2, 98, 98SE and ME (notably for their FAT32 filesystem)? I can
    > understand it for Windows 95 and 95OSR1 as they were designed before,
    > and may be also for the 95OSR2 version despite it was published in
    > late 1997, one year after UTF-16 was published.

    If you have programmed on Win9x for any length of time then you know the
    answer to this and it is simply a straw man to ask why such support was not
    done. Its the fundamental nature of what that system does and it would
    require a rewrite to support Unicode -- in fact, it did require a rewrite
    (called NT).

    There is MSLU, but it is designed for compatibility with Unicode programs on
    Win9x, and has the same limitations of non-Unicode support on NT.

    > Still I cannot conceive that effectively Windows 2000 disables its
    > support for UTF-16 and keeps on using UCS-2 only. This is still
    > the case in Windows XP, and Media Center, and I wonder if this
    > is still missing in the new Windows 2003 Server or in the next
    > coming Windows 2003 workstations.

    No, it is not still the case.

    And the only this that is disabled is the rendering. The ability to convert
    between GB18030 and UTF-16 is built into XP and Server 2003, and it is
    available via an installable for windows 2000.

    > How can Microsoft claim they support GB18030 in China in Windows
    > XP, Media Center, or Windows 2003 then? Is this support restricted
    > to only some APIs directly related to text presentation and handling
    > for the GUI (like in GDI+ and UniScribe) but not enforced in more
    > system APIs like the NTFS filesystem?

    See above. MS not only "claims" support but the support was certified by the
    apropriate PRC agency. Is it really necessary to go on about it here, in
    relation to unrelated questions about "support of Unicode 4.0" ?

    MichKa [MS]
    NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
    Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 02 2003 - 00:51:45 EST