Re: unicode (char as abstract data type)

Lin Zhe Min (
Thu, 14 May 1998 23:30:13 +0900 (CDT)

On Mon, 11 May 1998, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:

> I'm an old-timer, who considers ASCII to only have meaning < 127.

Aah.. It's really my fault. Ancient books include ASCII tables
which contain 256 characters, with different character set names.
(Yeah, they called 'em ASCII..)

> guaratee of being the same from system to system. That's my objection
> to "just send 8 bits", and why I like Unicode. ISO Latin 1, GB, BIG5,
> are all ways of using the upper 8 bits. None of them is "ASCII".

Just send 8 bits don't do. However I don't see it very intensive in your
issues. Well, let me ask something tough. Have you ever decided whether
ext2fs will be encoded in UTF-8 ? That's quite a hard decision to be
made, though...

> ... and that's the problem with the different code pages which you
> somehow have to magically know how to select the right code page. It's

No, pity. Microsoft hasn't provided a way to change the current code
page (in any 16-bit-character version), and I ought to install Japanese
version of Windows 95 for manipulating Japanese messages. How ugly!

.e'osai ko sarji la lojban. ==> Please support the logical language.
co'o mi'e lindjy,min. ==> Goodbye, I'm Lin Zhe Min.
Fingerprint20 = CE32 D237 02C0 FE31 FEA9 B858 DE8F AE2D D810 F2D9

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to