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
> In my professional experience, that's the root of too much evil :-)
> I'd just pick one and stick with it. (UTF-8, or UCS-32, or the other
> UTF thing out there).
It would be a simpler protocol to use just 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 worlds like C
and descendents where the notion of non-ascii character sets are a very
recent addition and not a natural part of the language, and (2) if we
add the extra "encoding" field, then we can put off actually
transitioning to unicode (or whatever) by saying that currently the only
valid encoding is ascii. Then later we can do unicode support, but also
support ascii for the old fashioned/lazy/whatever.
vos-d mailing list