On 07.09.2005 04:02, Reed Hedges wrote: > It would be a simpler protocol to use just unicode.
Still, you have to decide for some encoding of Unicode... > The problem is that > (1) it's an extra pain in the neck for developers (i.e. > programmer-users) to worry about, especially coming from worlds like C > and descendents where the notion of non-ascii character sets are a very > recent addition and not a natural part of the language, and (2) if we > add the extra "encoding" field, then we can put off actually > transitioning to unicode (or whatever) by saying that currently the only > valid encoding is ascii. Then later we can do unicode support, but also > support ascii for the old fashioned/lazy/whatever. If you want to be lazy and ASCII compatibility, use UTF-8. What good reasons are there to allow choice of encoding at all? -f.r.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
