Ed and Peter:

Probably the first code to be "liberated"
from ICU will be the normalization code.
ICU's recent X-licencing makes that palatable
for use in Perl.

I am working on ripping that out and calling it
standalone from XS right now. (I already made it callable from
picu.)

Anything else on anybody's wishlist?

What may complicate re-use of ICU are these things:

1) ICU relies on its own notion of locale.
   Although it's very light-weight (a string), nonetheless
   it's something different. May not be a big deal though.

2) ICU for C is a mixture of C and C++. I would expect
   that the Perl Porters only want C?

The status of picu (Perl Wrappers for ICU) is this:

- still alpha, but wraps most of the classes
- needs more docs and testing
- ICU is a big API, so always more to do
- Brian Stell and myself are still working on it
- easy and fun project to join and contribute to!

The September Unicode Conference in San Jose will have
a number of ICU lectures, replacing the ICU workshop
concept from last year. See you there.

James.

Peter Prymmer wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Ed Batutis wrote:
> 
> >
> > > Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Re: Determine encoding from $LANG
> > >A propos, how does all this i18n activity relate to the ICU?
> > >
> >
> > Is someone currently working on incorporating ICU into Perl?
> 
> I think Nick Ing-Simmons took some codepage data from ICU and
> folded it into the Encode module for developers versions of perl,
> but it would appear that he retained the Tcl format of the data
> rather than the ICU format.
> 
> There is also the picu project at:
> 
>    http://picu.sourceforge.net/
> 
> > If not, does someone have an idea when that work will start?
> 
> Some work appears to have started.  James Briggs will be giving a talk on
> picu at the O'Reilly Open Source Software Convention in San Diego toward
> the end of July.
> 
> > I'd like to help, but I know far more about ICU than I do Perl
> > internals which, I would guess, is the hard part.
> 
> A matter of perspective I suppose :-)
> 
> Peter Prymmer

Reply via email to