RE: OS 99

From: Murray Sargent (
Date: Thu Nov 12 1998 - 15:22:20 EST

One handy approach for dealing with multiple OSs is to use Unicode
internally in your code and factor all OS references out into an OS
"object". This object then deals with the anomalies of the various OSs you
want to support. That way you restrict any #ifdefs to your OS object and
you make it easier to support yet another OS, should you need to do so. You
can also use different OS objects for different OSs and delegate the choice
to your make file. In the RichEdit project, we use a combination of these
techniques to support a variety of OSs.


        -----Original Message-----
        From: Smita Desai []
        Sent: Thursday, November 12, 1998 6:36 AM
        To: Unicode List
        Subject: RE: OS 99

        Thanks Asmus for the clarifications. For someone struggling with the
        decision of porting a Solaris 2..6 app to Unicode or wait out for
        Solaris 7.0, it is quite misleading to say that the former supports
        Unicode. Solaris 2.6 has only two native Unicode locales, namely US
        English and Korean. And in all other cases, wide character does not
        translate to a Unicode character.

        My source code has more #ifdefs for Win 9x, Solaris and other Unix
        flavors than the actual lines of code.

        In any case, it would be a good idea if the Consortium were to
define a
        guideline in this respect.

        Smita Desai
        Software Engineer, Internationalization
        InConcert, Inc.

        Tel - 617.499.4427
        Fax - 617.499.4409

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Asmus Freytag []
                        Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 3:38 PM
                        To: Unicode List
                        Subject: RE: OS 99


                        your comment is well taken. The mail in question was
        probably not meant to
                        go to go out on this wide an alias in this form.
Last I
        saw it, it was being
                        circulated among knowledgeable people to try to
        information on Unicode
                        support in OS's, not in order to 'publish' a list
        compliant systems.

                        "Unicode compliant" is a term that is fraught with
        problems, because it is
                        in fact not defined anywhere in the standard.
        conformant" is the
                        legal term, however, we should not officially use it
        header on the table
                        below, since the consortium are not certifying

                        "Supports Unicode" is the informal term for
        to be Unicode
                        conformant, but not implying the same guarantees
        "Unicode conformant"

                        Unicode 'compliant' gets mistaken for Unicode
        'conformant' too easily,
                        which is bad. The chart should be entitled

                        "Operating systems which support Unicode.

                        Finally, I believe this is true for the Windows

>Windows NT all yes yes
>Windows CE yes yes
>Windows 95 no some *)
>Windows 98 no some *)
>Windows 2000 yes yes

                        *) code set conversions and limited, low level text

                        If anybody else has information on what to add here,
        please send it
                        to (not the whole list please). We
                        posting the table on our web site.

                        BTW, if someone wants to sumamrize the browsers for
        in the same manner
                        please send info to


                        At 07:42 AM 11/10/98 -0800, you wrote:
>What are the criteria for making "Unicode
        Is it the ability
>to convert to and from or actual support in all
>In the list below, I see a lot of instances where
        latter would not
>work, e.g. Windows 9x, Solaris 2.6 etc.. Win 9x
        not have Unicode
>support for "all" APIs and Solaris 2.6 has no
        except for to/from
>conversion, at least as far as I know.
>Just curious,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julia Oesterle (Unicode)
> Sent: Monday, November 09, 1998
> To: Unicode List
> Subject: FW: OS 99
> Hi -- update help requested:
> > A year ago, the question of which
        were Unicode
>compliant was answered
> > and
> > we constructed the following
> >
> > \OS Version
        UI API
> > Sun Solaris 2.6
        yes yes
> > IBM AIX 4.1x
        yes no
> > IBM OS/2 4.1
        no yes
> > IBM OS/400 3.7
        no yes
> > SGI IRIX* 6.4
        no no
> > Next Open Step
        yes yes
> > Apple Rhapsody
        yes yes
> > NetWare 4.x
        no yes
> > Windows NT 4.x yes
> > Windows 95
        no yes
> > Windows 98
        no yes
> > Linux no
> > *(IRIX supports conversions
        UCS4, UCS2, UTF8 &
>other character
> > sets)
> >
> > Has this changed?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Julia Oesterle

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:42 EDT