[JDEV] Writings from the Journal of TCharron

[arh14 at cornell.edu]

On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, Jon A. Cruz wrote:

[snip]
> For most western systems, it would be best to stick with just UTF-8. For far-east languages it might be a little
> more efficient data wise to send in UTF-16, but that might really add complexity (byte order issues and all). For
> our initial stuff, try doing UTF-8. Then for our immediate targets, here are the main charsets we'd have to be
> working with:
> 
> MS-Windows: Code-Page 1252
> Macintosh: Mac Roman
> Unix/Linux: ISO-8859-1
> 
> ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/VENDORS/MICSFT/WINDOWS/CP1252.TXT
> ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/VENDORS/APPLE/ROMAN.TXT
> ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/ISO8859/8859-1.TXT
> 
> Should each client support 3 different encodings, or just one? Just one is the logical choice, and also prevents
[snip]

Why can't each client just support ISO-8859-1...or UTF8 directly.  It is 
easy to ask this question sitting on the Java side of the fence.

Aaron