On 07.09.2005 04:42, Reed Hedges wrote:
> Right, sorry, when I say Unicode, I mean something we choose (one) that
> is the most-inclusive of all character sets/languages. Such an
> all-inclusive encoding would likely be a multibyte encoding, I presume.
Yeah... IIRC you have up to 2^21 characters
res wrote:
> On 07.09.2005 04:02, Reed Hedges wrote:
>
>>It would be a simpler protocol to use just unicode.
>
>
> Still, you have to decide for some encoding of Unicode...
Right, sorry, when I say Unicode, I mean something we choose (one) that
is the most-inclusive of all character sets/lan
On 07.09.2005 04:02, Reed Hedges wrote:
> It would be a simpler protocol to use just unicode.
Still, you have to decide for some encoding of Unicode...
> The problem is that
> (1) it's an extra pain in the neck for developers (i.e.
> programmer-users) to worry about, especially coming from worl
Lalo Martins wrote:
> And so says Peter Amstutz on 06/09/05 11:41...
>
>>A related, larger issue is internationalization of VOS in general. I'm
>>not sure where to go with that, although Reed mentions one issue which
>>is including the text encoding in places like property datatypes and
>>talk me
