At 02:52 AM 3/25/2001 -0500, Philip Newton wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > At 02:31 PM 3/23/2001 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> > >On Friday 23 March 2001 14:18, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > > At 01:30 PM 3/22/2001 -0800, Hong Zhang wrote:
> > > > >We need the character equivalence construct, such as [[=a=]], which
> > > > >matches "a", "A ACUTE".
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, we really need a big list of these. PDD anyone?
> > >
> > >But surely this is a locale issue, and not an encoding one? Not every
> > >language recognizes the same character equivalences.
> >
> > In Unicode, there's theoretically no locale. Theoretically...
>
>But it still has special-case mappings such as LATIN SMALL LETTER I can
>map to either LATIN CAPITAL LETTER I or LATIN CAPITAL LETTER I WITH DOT
>ABOVE, depending on whether your <censored> is Turkish-y or not. That's
>kind of like locale, even if you don't call it that. (And IIRC, the
>mapping of uppercase(LATIN LETTER SHARP S) to "SS" is also a special case
>for German.)
Gack. Well, that's still not nearly as bad as the current "what character
does this 8-bit byte map to" stuff we have with locales now. I can deal
with switching mapping tables.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
