Ove Kaaven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Can't data for X11 encodings just be internal to x11drv?
>>
>> Are the X11 encodings such specific and can not be replaced by the standard
>> encodings? Having such common feature as support for various encodings in one
>> place (kernel/ntdll) should help to minimize bugs in handling of encodings
>> and help in providing additional drivers without excessive complications.
>
>Well, you can surely use RtlCustomCP routines even if the tables are in
>the X11 module, and you can probably use the same tools to build the
>tables no matter where they are? I can't see anything that should make the
>solution any buggier.
Don't forget about the future drivers that can be created on the base of
x11drv. Then they should be forced to add theirs own encodings if needed
instead of using existing infrastructure and Win32 API.
>And what "standard" encodings would you be talking about? Pretty much NONE
>of the Microsoft codepages are standard encodings. Even CP1252 is a little
>different from iso8859-1. And as far as I know, there is no codepage that
>corresponds to any of the other major encodings... like koi8-r, for
>example?
The word "standard" I used just means publicly approved and widely used.
I assume that publication at the unicode.org means exactly that.
>I think that since X11 encodings (which are standard) have nothing in
>common with codepages (which is ordinary Microsoft non-standard), the
>tables could just as well be linked into the X11 module.
The X11 encodings could be easy used along with the code page stuff.
I think also that having X11 encodings encapsuled in the nls-like files
would help to use them not only inside of x11drv.
>> Let's take c_20261.nls from NT4 and c_950.nls from NT2000:
...
>> Why the sizes are so different? Or cp950 has additional OEM tables
>> (with displayable symbols)?
>
>No, cp950 has a much broader lead byte range (81-FE, i.e. 126 lead byte
>codes), and each lead byte obviously need an additional 256-char trail
>byte conversion table.
Thank you for explanation. I see that still I know less than needed to
deal with DBCS. Perhaps, at start I'll begin with creating SBCS tables only.
>(Oh, and I decided to also reverse engineer the DBCS conversion stuff in
>NT, and so I've updated my webpages with the new information, if you want
>to see it.)
Thanks, I'll look at that.
Dmitry.
