RE: OS 99

From: Ienup Sung (ienup.sung@eng.sun.com)
Date: Thu Nov 12 1998 - 14:30:00 EST


Hi,

Your requirement is well taken and I think it calls for a Common Unicode
Programming Interfaces for C language hopefully all participating member
companies can agree upon.

Regarding the Solaris Unicode support, yes, we don't define/use Unicode
for wide character values in all locales but only in Unicode locales since
we are not only supporting Unicode but also many other existing and new
codesets in the world. Please give me a call/email if you have any specific
porting issues on Solaris. Even though I won't be able to allocate 100% of my
time to customers, I'm sure I can be a help on various issues you might have
and also connect to right people in the company.

With regards,

Ienup +1-(650)786-9065

] Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 06:35:39 -0800 (PST)
] From: Smita Desai <sdesai@inconcert.com>
] Subject: RE: OS 99
] To: Unicode List <unicode@unicode.org>
] MIME-version: 1.0
]
] 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
]
] Smita Desai
] Software Engineer, Internationalization
] InConcert, Inc.
]
] Tel - 617.499.4427
] Fax - 617.499.4409
] smita@inconcert.com
] http://www.inconcert.com
]
]
]
] -----Original Message-----
] From: Asmus Freytag [mailto:asmusf@ix.netcom.com]
] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 3:38 PM
] To: Unicode List
] Subject: RE: OS 99
]
] Smita,
]
] 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 gather
] information on Unicode
] support in OS's, not in order to 'publish' a list of
] compliant systems.
]
] "Unicode compliant" is a term that is fraught with
] problems, because it is
] in fact not defined anywhere in the standard. "Unicode
] conformant" is the
] legal term, however, we should not officially use it as
] header on the table
] below, since the consortium are not certifying
] conformance.
]
] "Supports Unicode" is the informal term for attempting
] to be Unicode
] conformant, but not implying the same guarantees that
] "Unicode conformant"
] entails.
]
] 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 family.
]
] >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
] output
]
] If anybody else has information on what to add here,
] please send it
] to info@unicode.org (not the whole list please). We are
] considering
] posting the table on our web site.
]
] BTW, if someone wants to sumamrize the browsers for us
] in the same manner
] please send info to info@unicode.org
]
] A./
]
]
]
]
] At 07:42 AM 11/10/98 -0800, you wrote:
] >What are the criteria for making "Unicode compliant"?
] Is it the ability
] >to convert to and from or actual support in all
] functions?
] >In the list below, I see a lot of instances where the
] latter would not
] >work, e.g. Windows 9x, Solaris 2.6 etc.. Win 9x does
] not have Unicode
] >support for "all" APIs and Solaris 2.6 has no support
] except for to/from
] >conversion, at least as far as I know.
] >
] >Just curious,
] >Smita
] >
] > -----Original Message-----
] > From: Julia Oesterle (Unicode)
] >[mailto:v-juliao@microsoft.com]
] > Sent: Monday, November 09, 1998 9:54
] PM
] > To: Unicode List
] > Subject: FW: OS 99
] >
] > Hi -- update help requested:
] >
] > > A year ago, the question of which OSs
] were Unicode
] >compliant was answered
] > > and
] > > we constructed the following chart:
] > >
] > > \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
] yes
] > > Windows 95
] no yes
] > > Windows 98
] no yes
] > > Linux no
] response
] > > *(IRIX supports conversions between
] 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