On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Ross Berteig <r...@cheshireeng.com> wrote: > The large part of the world stuck with MS products can and should exert some > pressure to get better compliance from MS with many standards, not just > Unicode. They change at glacial speeds, but they do change. A good first > step would be for them to develop and support a "proper" Unicode Locale and > code page for their console window. Doing that right likely means following > the examples and lessons learned from the Linux community which has been > blazing that trail and found (and escaped) most of the dead ends. I think it > has become clear that Unicode is here to stay, and UTF-8 is the best > representation of it both at rest in files and on the wire in protocols.
I agree completely about MS doing things Better(TM), but when it comes to complaints or observations about their Unicode compliance, I laugh. Not because they shouldn't change ... they should. But because they were one of the *first* to support Unicode as designed and standardized. UTF-8 was people blazing new trails because they didn't want to do it in the blessed manner of the day. :) Unicode was a simple straightforward two byte encoding back then. As Bill Gates (then CEO of MS, MS being one of the earliest members of the Unicode Consortium) said in 1991: "Okay, so 640K of RAM isn't enough memory, but 64K code points will definitely encode more characters than we'll ever possibly need. You have my word on it!" True story. ;) -- Scott Robison _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
