Today at 13:03, Bruno Haible wrote:
> srintuar wrote:
>> > 1) For printf("%s\n", "SchÃne GrÃÃe");
>> ...
>> Being that UTF-8 is sortof an an endpoint in the evolution of encodings,
>> I also consider option 1 to be perfectly valid.
>
> I would be careful with such statements. We don't know what the successor
> of UTF-8 might look like, nor when it will appear (in 6 years? 10 years?
> 15 years?). But predictions like "A personal computer will never need more
> than 640 KB of RAM" have too frequently turned out to be wrong.
I'd second that. Unicode itself has quite a few quirks of its own,
and UTF-8 as a "Transformation Format" of it is no better.
I'd be very disappointed if Unicode/UTF-8 was really endpoint in the
evolution of encodings (for instance, I'd prefer if I was able to
encode Serbian language content with a single set of codepoints, since
it uses either Latin or Cyrillic script, and there's [almost]
bijective mapping between them). Those making heavy use of "CJK"
glyphs would surely have more objections, and undoubtly, many others.
Cheers,
Danilo
--
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
