On Tuesday, November 16th, 2004 12:44Z srintuar va escriure: > > Unlike the famous gates quote, it is reasonable to state that certain > things represent ending points. For example, a 64 bit time counter for > seconds will probably be enough.
Perhaps what is not reasonable here is to stop a 1-second precision... > Language itself will change over time, though not as fast as it has in > the past. How does language relates to the subject? Or are you speaking about orthography instead? > A world with 20years of solid support for unicode/utf-8 would be > free to work on more interesting problems. Giving the actual market for user-directed operating systems and consequently encoding of inputted datas, I am not really sure utf-8 would be the only content-encoding choice available in the very near future, or even 10-20 years from now. Of course, I can be wrong on this one. In fact, I hope I am wrong ;-). We all hope that. But we do not hold our breathes, do you? > Changes to unicode dont require any change to UTF-8 itself. The discussion came up about your claim that it would be better to restrict the encoding of strings inside programs to the only use of UTF-8 encoded strings. Any change to Unicode (in the script involved; say, if in German, Umlaut becomes a different codepoint from present diaeresis U+0308...) would affect such strings: it would be the actual characters rather than the bytes encoded, but nevertheless the program would have to be massaged; which was precisely the point. TschÃÃ, Antoine -- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
