Hi,
I spent some time with google and I've found that this encoding
confirms ISO-646 7bit standard and its "official" name is: ISO-646-YU
Yes it was ISO standard ISO 646:1973 (from 1973.)
It's probably the last ISO-646-?? encoding still used in real life
:))
Then I suggest to use HR646 and SL646 as Harbour CP names.
I hope that such proposition is reasonable. What's your opinion?
Yes your proposal is reasonable (regarding possible future extensions)
Only, I would suggest to have "CROSCII" as part of description and
ChangeLog. People are not familiar with ISO standards (ISO Standard
numbers). Having only HR646 could misslead to something like "codepage 646"
:)
I'll be thankful if you can answer yet about adding HR646C or
updating HR646 (current HR437) to use strictly Clipper compatible
collation order. What do you prefer?
Or maybe current order is wrong?
I would say that Clipper compatible order is wright one, and that there is
no reason to have two different ordering methods. So the (only) sort order
should be:
#define HB_CP_UPPER "ABC^]D\EFGHIJKLMNOPQRS[TUVWXYZ@"
#define HB_CP_LOWER "abc~}d|efghijklmnopqrs{tuvwxyz`"
I've just checked that in xHarbour HR* CPs use the same character
order as in Clipper but SL* CPs not and are Harbour compatible.
What is the correct sort order? Is it different for Croatia and
Slovenia?
I think, and as far as I know (perhaps someone from Slovenia could verify
that) that both Croatia and Slovenia have the same sort order. Problem is
perhaps that when CA extends Clipper to support "CRONTX" there was no
extension especially for Slovenia (nothing like SLONTX). If I remember well,
some colleagues from Slovenia used CRONTX in Clipper.
Thank you very much and Best Regards,
Vito
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB)
[email protected]
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
