Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP
id AA6107 ; Mon, 04 Jan 93 22:09:31 EST
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!spool.mu.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: INTERNATIONALIZATION: JAPAN, FAR EAST
Message-ID: <1993Jan7.050821.13478@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Sender: news@fcom.cc.utah.edu
Organization: Weber State University (Ogden, UT)
References: <2616@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> <1993Jan5.093059.29631@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <2629@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 05:08:21 GMT
Lines: 54
In article <2629@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.093059.29631@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
>
>>>BTW, can you explain what XPG4 is?
>>
>>The internationalization mechanism following XPG3, the SVR4.2 standard for
>>internationalization. XPG4 is XPG3 with East Asian language support.
>
>Then, XPG4 should be EUC.
No, it uses JIS encoding, which should make Japanese users happy, if they
are all as worried about code points as you are. Many of the initial
responses form Japan to my original posting calling for suggestions
indicated that this was not as much of a priority for Japanese users as
you would lead us to believe. The code point "grass" in Unicode
(the only real conflict which has been presented so far) is not irresolvable.
>>>>|> True. But, it should be noted that they don't fit even in 16 bits.
>>>>
>>>>Work is already under way to adapt Unicode to 32 bits. I would be interested
>>>>in any similar work you know of in progress for XPG4/JIS.
>
>As a subset of ISO 2022, EUC allows for a 16, 24 or 32 bit character code
>set.
EUC, although not quite as useless for internationalization as you state
below, is quite cumbersome in implementation compared to Unicode.
>
>>The primary use for an interntaionalization mechanism will be localization;
>>anything on top of that (and yes, we can build multilingual applications
>>on top of that with little effort) is gravy.
>
>That is exactly the internationalization model of EUC, whose model is proven
>to be useless for internationalization.
>
>So, you don't have to prove it again with Unicode. Just use EUC.
It's *not* the same model, and I don't intend to make EUC's mistakes in
implementation, which is where it really fell down.
Terry Lambert
terry@icarus.weber.edu
terry_lambert@novell.com
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------