Peter Prymmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
>
>Thank you for the clarification. I note that in the perl@11359
>distribution there is a difference in file size for what appear to be
>equivalent *.enc and *.ucm files. For example:
>
>% ls -l ext/Encode/Encode/posix-bc*
>-r--r--r-- 1 pvhp system 1102 Jul 9 07:10 ext/Encode/Encode/posix-bc.enc
>-r--r--r-- 1 pvhp system 9847 Jul 9 07:10 ext/Encode/Encode/posix-bc.ucm
>
>% ls -l ext/Encode/Encode/ascii.*
>-r--r--r-- 1 pvhp system 1090 Jul 9 07:09 ext/Encode/Encode/ascii.enc
>-r--r--r-- 1 pvhp system 4554 Jul 9 07:09 ext/Encode/Encode/ascii.ucm
>
>Which is understandable given the format differences. Is it the case that
>we can get rid of one format in favor of the other?
The plan is to keep the .ucm files.
>Do you foresee
>maintenance of support for both formats?
I didn't, but now we have escape encodings based of Tcl scheme
thanks to Sadahiro Tomoyuki I need to see if that extends its life.
>Weighed against file size and
>licensing considerations (and whatever else might be relevant) which
>format would you favor (in other words can we trim down the size of the
>perl tar ball)? Thank you.
The Tcl format is compact, but is not as rich and is non-standard.
The UCM format is based on one of the "Posix" standards.
>
>Peter Prymmer
--
Nick Ing-Simmons
http://www.ni-s.u-net.com/
