On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Gurusamy Sarathy wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2001 23:42:09 PDT, Prymmer/Kahn wrote:
> >I think that the "Unicode everywhere" presecription is a nice idea but
> >is a bit too simplistic and does not solve some real world legacy encoding
> >problems.
>
> Are you saying that EBCDIC has codepoints that aren't in Unicode? If not,
No, as a matter of fact I didn't want to come off sounding as though I
didn't think that Unicode was a good idea. I do think that Unicode is a
good idea. It happens to be incompatible with EBCDIC, but that is not
too important IMO.
> Are you saying that EBCDIC has codepoints that aren't in Unicode? If not,
> I fail to see what the problem is.
Qua collection of characters (i.e. a character set, ignoring
differences in codepoint choices) Windows CP 1252 is not the same as ISO
8859-1. Mac Roman is not the same as Windows CP 1252, and Mac Roman is
not the same as ISO 8859-1. While they can all be mapped into (hence out
of) Unicode, but they cannot be mapped to each other without substituting
characters that are not in the original set. Hence invoking Unicode or
specifying Unicode as the required coding does not solve the problem of
trying to view things through legacy char set colored glasses.
Peter Prymmer
