At 02:51 PM 6/19/2001 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > Gah. I thought (and I use the word loosely here) that locales generally
> > specified how a particular character should be interpreted when there's
> > some ambiguity--the high bit ASCII characters spring to mind, given
> there's
> > a dozen or more different interpretations with them. I was under the
> > impression that given an encoding and a locale, there was no ambiguity and
> > that the interpretation of a particular character was exact. In the Big5
> > case, I'd assume that there'd be at least two different
> > locales--Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese--that governed how the
> > characters are interpreted.
> >
> > I get the feeling I'm being rather naive here, huh?
>
>Well, single-minded with a purpose, maybe :-)
>
>I was being too broad, sorry if I threw you into pits of despair.
>
>*If* we are talking about pile of octects and an encoding, yes,
>then I think we have an unambiguous thing.
Oh, good. That was what I was concerned about. Next time I think I'll try
using a less-loaded word than 'locale'.
>But a locale is a collection of user preferences. How I want
>my dates to be formatted, how I want my strings to be sorted.
Ah. That's a separate problem. (Related, but separate) We can deal with
that in a different way, I think. I'm not sure which way, but a different one.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
