[JDEV] Writings from the Journal of TCharron

[Jon A. Cruz]

arh14 at cornell.edu wrote:

> 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.

Ahh. My point exactly.

UTF-8. (Gotta keep those Windows people happy, and those Mac'ies love dem pi symbols :-)

As long as the clients support talking UTF-8, it's perfectly fine to only send US-ASCII for now; it's a complete
subset. Just make the code handle UTF-8 over the wire, and UTF-16 or whatever internally.


--
"My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.