Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Why can't you continue to use the MULE code and just change the >> character sets to reflect certain aspects of Unicode? > > The current plan for Unicode was discussed at length 3 years ago, and > the result was what I described.
Is the discussion archived somewhere, or are there some design documents which resulted from the discussion? > I don't think it's wise for us to reopen that discussion again, > unless you think the UTF-8-based representation is a terribly wrong > design. Of course, it's hard to come up with constructive criticism when you don't know what's already there. ;-) > So I don't see any reason for the unnamed Unicode people to get > annoyed by a term they themselves coined. Me neither, but I got flamed in the past. :-/ > Conceivably, changing the internal representation doesn't mean we need > to rewrite all of the existing code, just the low-level parts of it > that deal with code conversions (i.e. subroutines of encoding and > decoding functions). I still don't understand the need for such a change. In theory, the internal representation of characters should be invisible to the higher levels. - Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
