In a message dated 2001-09-17 13:06:16 Pacific Daylight Time,
cbrown@xnetinc.com writes:
> I agree that there is a world of software out there that does not support
> Unicode 3.1 yet. Toby has a legitimate problem. It is the proposed
solution
> that bothers me. For now I suspect that living with the BMP restrictions
> should not pose a severe hardship on most systems today. Moving on to fully
> implement the full Unicode range should be the carrot to upgrade current
code.
> PDUTR #26 is the wrong way to go because it puts a new demand on systems
> that have already converted. It also creates more work by doing things
twice.
> Adding proper library of CESU-8 support functions is probably more work
> than upgrading from UCS-2 to UTF-16.
To reiterate my earlier point: Restricting potential CESU-8 implementations
to BMP characters only (i.e. UCS-2) should not be a significant limitation,
since there are almost certainly no supplementary characters in Oracle or
Peoplesoft databases.
Can Jianping, Toby, or someone else from Oracle or Peoplesoft please address
this question of supplementary characters? The whole purpose of CESU-8 is to
handle supplementary characters differently from the way UTF-8 handles them.
What supplementary characters are being currently handled in a CESU-8 way
that must not be corrected?
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Sep 17 2001 - 20:49:58 EDT