nanogui: UniCode
Subject:
RE: Unicode
From:
"Rob Taylor" ####@####.####
Date:
29 Mar 2000 15:35:40 -0000
Message-Id: <000c01bf9993$158bf800$b400a8c0@eventhorizon>
> > So this could speak for a 16-Bit representation. I think, it would
> > be more easy to convert a given program to 16 bit, because you have
> > a single 16 bit value for a character, not a floating scheme. So it
> > could be easier to use existing routines for example to get the
> > length of a string etc. (This could be different: Is a length the
> > lenght in bytes or the number of characters -what now could be
> > different. But in old programs its always the same.)
>
> I couldn't disagree with you more. I loathe the idea of not
> using char for
> strings, and so does most of GNU/Linux I think.
>
when it comes down to it. if your designing a program to use unicode from
the outset, you should use (and indeed be able to use) 16 or 32 bit unicode,
as it's more efficiant and easier to use. If however you have to interface
to legacy code, or are modifying an ascii program for unicode, UTF8 should
be availiable for use... not need for a religious war here...
Rob
