On Wed, 30 Dec 2009, Vitomir Cvitanovic wrote:
Hi,
> YUSCII (CROSCII) had many names (YUSCII, CP-999, CROSCII, CRO-437),
> and this was first
> implementation of our diacritics, and it was 7-bit codepage...
> And again - you are wright it was also called žabeceda, because @
> that is implementation for Ž is before
> letter A :))
> About proposed name, I think it would be ok something like
> CROSCII/SLOSCII (I would like to avoid
> HRYU and SLYU). Or maybe HR999/SL999
I would like to keep two leading letters as ISO language code
so it should be HR and SL. In such case I think the best will
be HR999 and SL999.
> Some explanation:
> -------------------
> In the 1990s, there was a general confusion about the proper
> character encoding to use to
> write text in Latin Croatian (also Slovenian, Serbian-latin) on computers.
> - An attempt was made to apply the 7-bit coding - "YUSCII" (later
> adapted to CROSCII), which included
> the five letters with diacritics at the expense of five non-letter
> characters ([, ], {, }, @)
> (This "codepage" was called YUSCII, CP-999, CROSCII, CRO-437,...)
> Also this codepage was included with nation support for Clipper 5.2
> (MsgCro.obj, NtxCro.obj)
And this is important information. I've just generated cphr999.c file
using tests/cpinfo.prg and there is important difference between CL52
and Harbour CPs. Clipper uses this order:
#define HB_CP_UPPER "ABC^]D\EFGHIJKLMNOPQRS[TUVWXYZ@"
#define HB_CP_LOWER "abc~}d|efghijklmnopqrs{tuvwxyz`"
and Harbour:
#define HB_CP_UPPER "abc^]d\\efghijklmnopqrs[tu...@xy"
#define HB_CP_LOWER "abc~}d|efghijklmnopqrs{tuvwz`xy"
as you can see they are not binary compatible because letters
XY in Harbour are moved to the end after Ž and xy after ž.
If you need to share indexes between Harbour and Clipper then
Harbour have to use _EXACTLY_ the same sorting as Clipper
otherwise mixed Harbour and Clipper updates will cause index
corruption.
So there is new question:
Is it important difference for Croatian users so we should have
two CPs: HR999 with correct order "...s[tu...@xy" and HR999C
which uses a little bit different but strictly Clipper compatible
collation "...S[TUVWXYZ@" to use when data base files are shared
with Clipper applications?
Or it's not such important because X and Y letters are used very
seldom only in foreign words so only one HR999 but strictly compatible
with Clipper is enough?
best regards,
Przemek
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB)
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
