Hi Joseph,
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On 12 Jul 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote:
>
>> Yes, we will do that after the discussion if the _feature_ is
>> welcome.
>
> To decide whether a feature is welcome, documentation is needed -
I think this documentation describes the feature (not the
implementation) sufficiently:
http://wwwold.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg20/docs/n830-utf-16-c.txt
> and code isn't.
But code is needed for us to work. And it's up to us to make patches.
And the we have to provide patches if we want to share this with
others according to the license of gcc. So we simply play happily with
the rules.
[...]
> The gcc lists have over 60 Mbyte of mail a month;
First we are here on the utf8 list and second we did not approach
anybody on both lists for a year. Instead we worked with the standard
commitees like it was proposed in the first discussions.
>> Actually we simply provided our internal version for a basis for
>> discussion. I would be more interested in the discussion if this an
>> accepted feature than getting bashed for some formal requirements.
>
> The impression given by the post first mentioning this patch on
> linux-utf8 was otherwise -
The first post did not come from our group or company. It was somebody
detecting our work and posting it here.
[...]
>> A question here about standard string literals and UTF8 (I am
>> really no specialist about Unicode et al): What hinders anybody to
>> do UCN in standard C string literals and UTF8 encoding?
>
> It should already work. But there are probably bugs in this area.
OK, thanks for the clarification.
Greetings
Christoph
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
