Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > On 2007-10-19, Russell Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> One advantage of unicode encoding is that every character has the >> same meaning independant of any tag things. That makes it easy to >> cut and paste multilingual text between applications without any >> out-of-band communication of encoding tags. This statelessness >> is the most worthwhile advantage IMO. UTF-8 could be considered >> a common inter-app encoding protocol, and apps can use whatever >> encoding they want internally. > > That's up to for individual protocols to specify, or (preferrably) > not specify. A single protocol is in any case easier to ugprade to > a better encoding than a global monoculture. Applications hardly > can use whatever encoding they want to use internally if libraries > force a monoculture.
I see what you mean now. That ceased being a problem for me when i stopped using woeful FOSS stuff and wrote my own. The larger community still needs better libraries. > The best approach is abstraction, an encoding > blackbox, but such a fundamental tenet of good software design > tends to not be appreciated these days, because any possibility for > alternatives is a big no-no. Megalomaniac rigid and bureaucratic > structures are in. _______________________________________________ wm-spec-list mailing list wm-spec-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list
