On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Joakim <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sunday, 26 May 2013 at 19:20:15 UTC, Marcin Mstowski wrote: > >> Character Data Representation >> Architecture<http://www-01.**ibm.com/software/**globalization/cdra/<http://www-01.ibm.com/software/globalization/cdra/> >> >by >> >> IBM. It is what you want to do with additions and it is available >> since >> 1995. >> When you come up with an inventive idea, i suggest you to first check what >> was already done in that area and then rethink this again to check if you >> can do this better or improve existing solution. Other approaches are >> usually waste of time and efforts, unless you are doing this for fun or >> you >> can't use existing solutions due to problems with license, copyrights, >> price, etc. >> > You might be right, but I gave it a quick look and can't make out what the > encoding actually is. There is an appendix that lists several possible > encodings, including UTF-8! >
Yes, because they didn't reinvent wheel from scratch and are reusing existing encodings as a base. There isn't any problem with adding another code page. > Also, one of the first pages talks about representations of floating point > and integer numbers, which are outside the purview of the text encodings > we're talking about. They are outside of scope of CDRA too. At least read picture description before making out of context assumptions. > I cannot possibly be expected to know about every dead format out there. Nobody expect that. > If you can show that it is materially similar to my single-byte encoding > idea, it might be worth looking into. > Spending ~15 min to read Introduction isn't worth your time, so why should i waste my time showing you anything ?
