Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 08:54:02 -0500 From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Policy on printf format specifiers? Message-ID: <199509191354.IAA29446@bonkers.taronga.com> In-Reply-To: <199509182004.NAA08387@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: <199509181147.HAA15090@exalt.x.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>I personally have a number of problems with the encoding ordering for >ligatured languages, like Tamil, Devengari, Hebrew, Arabic, etc., since >there is an implied inability to use fixed cell rendering technologies, >like X. Why should the storage encoding and the display encoding and the internal encoding be the same? You can have three encodings if you want. The overhead is minimal, it's not like we're mandating display postscript. >Rendering the file length meaningless and requiring the use of record >oriented file systems with variant length records to handle data from >fix length input fields from user interaction screens. And this claim is just weird. This is an application issue... file systems have nothing to do with it. If the only things you feed into the kernel are multibyte character strings, you don't need any of this.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199509191354.IAA29446>