res wrote: > 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...
Right, sorry, when I say Unicode, I mean something we choose (one) that is the most-inclusive of all character sets/languages. Such an all-inclusive encoding would likely be a multibyte encoding, I presume. > > >>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? > _______________________________________________ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
