The main reason is that the unused codes reserved for future use are not, and a new part
is required to make use of them. I think this is a mistake. I think it is better to tell
the user he has an unrecognized code than that he has an unrecognized encoding.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick McGowan [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 9:20 AM
> To: Unicode List
> Subject: RE: CP1252 under Unix
> Chris Pratley said...
> > I do not see many new character encodings being defined these days,
> > do you?
> All the new character encodings I see are coming out of The Standards Body:
> ISO is the biggest modern culprit in the race to produce yet more different
> character encodings... presumably an infinite number of new parts of 8859
> will be forthcoming, all of which are incredible time sinks.
> In the real world of companies that are producing software and trying to
> interoperate with everyone else, nobody wants anything to do with new
> character encodings. Not from where I can see. At one time they may have
> been an advantage, but not anymore.
> > if cp-1252 on the net is such a problem for Unix (Mac?) users,
> > no one is rushing to fix the browsing experience
> Hey, I'm running Unix... As far as CP-1252, the one and only problem that I
> *ever* see with it (again, from where I sit) is that it is most often
> identified as 8859-1, but isn't.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:00 EDT