home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Submitted-by: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
-
- In article <16b9drINNero@ftp.UU.NET> peterw@spaten.sharebase.com (Peter Wisnovsky) writes:
- >In article <166v0lINNpj8@ftp.UU.NET> mckee@imail.compaq.com (George McKee) writes:
- >>Not to mention the reports that Microsoft NT will be POSIX compliant when
- >>it appears.
- >Not really in terms of character set support. My understanding is that
- >they are going to fix wchar_t at 16 bits to store Unicode data, which
- >strictly speaking is non-conformant.
-
- What's not standard conforming about that? Indeed, it is not possible
- to treat Unicode as a "multi-byte character encoding" according to the
- C standard; there is a discussion of this in C Information Bulletin # 1.
-
- >Unfortunately there seems to be no satisfactory way to imbed Unicode
- >within the EUC framework used in AT&T's MNLS system, which I understand
- >is their implementation of Posix international language support.
-
- The promoters of Unicode were informed of the (numerous) problems in
- fitting Unicode into the existing practice, reflected in Standard C
- multibyte character support, but basically they responded that
- character sets were more fundamental than programming languages and
- that they would therefore ignore the impact of their work on
- programming languages, it being the languages' responsibility to
- use whatever they came up with. Some attitude!
-
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 28, Number 99
-
-