From: Doug Ewell (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Nov 15 2004 - 00:01:46 CST
Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com> wrote:
> There are some UTF-8/UTF-16 interoperability aspects that are
> addressed by CESU-8. These concerns are real, and affect multi-
> component architectures that must interchange data across component
> boundaries. Therefore a standard specification serves a useful
I understand that there are strings in databases originally sorted in
UTF-16 code point order, for whatever reason, and that these strings
need to stay sorted in the same order when converted to UTF-8. I happen
to believe this should be handled in the sort routine, not by inventing
a new character encoding scheme, and said so at the time. The code to
perform the necessary transformation is quite small and fast (I think it
was one of the Markuses who demonstrated this).
> You realize that the choice of material for a UTN rests with the
> authors. Occasionally that will mean that material that could be a
> formal specification is placed into a UTN by an author uninterested in
> getting UTC endorsement, or one that lacks the time to pursue such.
> In the case of BOCU-1 it's the latter, as the UTC has welcomed the
> idea of putting this on a standards track.
> So, your remarks should be directed at the authors of the UTN, and/or
> the owners of the relevant technology.
I will do so. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction on this.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 15 2004 - 00:03:45 CST