At Thu, 10 Jan 2002 01:06:22 -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > How major a problem is this in practice, right now? > > One temporary solution I could suggest is having specs (in this case, > Ogg tags) choose a specific vendor's translation tables for these, and > saying "until Unicode standardizes these tables, use these, not your > system's." That would at least (try to) guarantee that until that > happens, if a user enters text on one system in SJIS, and moves it to > another via UTF-8, he'll get the same SJIS output.
I think it is a good idea. I'd like you to request Unicode Consortium to follow your idea. However, the problem is, Unicode Consortium doesn't have enough political power to define one standardized table and it doesn't have will to release one authorized mapping table. Do you think venders like MS, Sun, IBM, Apple, and so on (all of them are members of Unicode Consortium) will throw away their private mapping tables and follow a common one, though it means these venders will lose compatibility to their previous products? It is almost impossible. However, I think such venders' interests are against users' interests. Thus I want many people to send mails to request one standard mapping table. There may be a possibility that some one private table will be popular enough to be a de-facto standard. I imagine many venders are thinking about their own private table will win a status of de-facto standard. Though I don't like MS private table (CP932) because it has much more differences to other tables, I will welcome it if it can finish this confusing situation. See a chapter of "Conversion tables differ between venders" in http://www.debian.or.jp/~kubota/unicode-symbols.html for detail. --- Tomohiro KUBOTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.or.jp/~kubota/ "Introduction to I18N" http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/intro-i18n/ -- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
