From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Apr 4 17:22: 5 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from phobos.illtel.denver.co.us (dsl-206.169.4.82.wenet.com [206.169.4.82]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F31937B595 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 17:22:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from abelits@phobos.illtel.denver.co.us) Received: from localhost (abelits@localhost) by phobos.illtel.denver.co.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA11234 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 17:22:53 -0700 Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 17:22:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Alex Belits To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Unicode on FreeBSD Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 4 Apr 2000, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > I don't understand what possible benefit there is in having *NO* > options to deal with all the language-characters in the world. Even > if unicode isn't perfect, it is a damn sight better than nothing. The existing "market" of multilingual application is so small, and it's based on so simplistic requirements (to be able to display and print characters, and make multilingual "web pages"), that even solution so much flawed as standardization on Unicode can survive. Unicode is positioned as the _replacement_ for languages/charsets handling infrastructure -- "we know all the characters, so we can write all the words, right?". As demands for sopisticated processing of multilingual texts will increase, "Unicode-only" systems will demonstrate their ridiculous limits and ambiguity, however if no multiple-charset/multiple-language infrastructure in libraries, formats, protocols, text and document editors and interpreter-based programming languages will be in place, there will be no way to improve the situation. This is why I think that the design of the language support infrastructure is an extremely important taks, and if it will succeed, efficient, modularized support of charsets/encodings, including Unicode, can be implemented painlessly. > If some specific change for unicode does break things, then I can > see arguing that change. I can't fathom why anyone would argue > against unicode support per se. I am not against the support for Unicode. I just never have seen an attempt of providing usable Unicode support that didn't leave scorched earth to any other possible attempt of supporting multilingual environment or even single-charset environment other than iso8859-1 or Unicode. I think that instead of blind following the ideas of "one charset" we need to design something that can painlessly accept various charsets in the same document/stream/etc (just like MIME does in its own clumsy way). If Unicode support will be implemented on top of it, I will be the last person to criticize it. -- Alex To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message