> "Carl W. Brown" wrote:
>> "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan", Mon, 2001-09-17 12:07:19 -0700 wrote:
>>> "Carl W. Brown" wrote:
>>> It would seem to be that if you either have to change the UTF-8 code to
>>> support CESU-8 or change the UTF-16 compare logic then changing the UTF-16
>>> logic to do code point order compares is a much more containable change
>>> with a much lower processing impact.
>> The difference being that the CESU-8 solution is already implemented.
>> They just use the [non-]UTF-8 implementation they have had all along,
>> and its done.
>>
>> The other would be new work, which no one is proposing (the new work
>> would solely fall on the shoulders of those who would end up needing
>> to CESU-8 once it leaks).
> I suspect that the only reason that the committee has not rejected
> the proposal out of hand is that they acknowledge that there is a
> problem. I suspect the Peoplesoft is not the only company with
> this problem.
and later:
> There is absolutely no reason why Peoplesoft & Oracle can not document
> the protocol in their own manuals. This will give implementers further
> warning that these are proprietary character sets unless they want to
> restrict the use to BMP characters only. It will also force the
> implementers to check to see if the Oracle & Peoplesoft implementations
> are the same so that it will be absolutely clear that it is a
> non-standard protocol.
Responsibility. Paying for one's own mistakes. Taking one's lumps.
Lying in the bed one has made. What a concept. Right up there with
informed consent, need to know, and the right to be let alone and free
from intrusion (a.k.a. privacy)... all apparently actively opposed
by those involved so that they might benefit at others' expense.
John G. Otto, Eagle Scout, Knight, Cybernetic Praxeologist
Existence, Consciousness, Identity, Life, Liberty, Property, Privacy, Justice
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Sep 28 2001 - 15:31:33 EDT