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

Reply via email to