On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 10:59:26PM -0700, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
> Actually, I would be (happens now with CP-1252 vs. ISO-8858-1).
Where? What characters? I glanced at a local copy of the Unicode charts
for them, and both were the identity function for characters in ASCII.
I'm not talking about different characters; I'm talking about characters
that are defined to be the same, and yet the Unicode conversion tables
convert differently.
> Because if
> people would just use Unicode for their XML, they would not have the
> problem.
Then they might have the problem that their editor couldn't enter it
(Emacs, or every IM under Linux I've seen), or that they constantly
have to convert it to manipulate it. People are going to write
XML using the same encoding as they do for everything else.
Frankly, the attitude of "Forget all the stuff that you have working;
just throw it all away and move to Unicode" is not one that wins many
converts. Backward compatibility and the ability to interface with
other systems running different stuff is always useful. This is
especially bad, as the Japanese community is one of the major bodies
of anti-Unicode setiment.
-- David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org "I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Sep 04 2001 - 03:13:31 EDT