Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Jonathan Robie wrote: > I think most implementers use the Unicode support in their programming > languages or standard Unicode libraries for parsing Unicode, because > it's too much work to roll your own. It's odd to tell someone who relies > on newer versions of Unicode that although the characters of their > language work fine on their computer and can be displayed in their word > process, we require XML parsers to check each character to ensure that > they do not support these characters. > Really? In the case of of characters added in Unicode 3.0 and later there's very little if any support for them in the major operating systems. Possibly you can add it in, but it ain't easy. They certainly do not "work fine on their computer and can be displayed in their word process" XML has much better support for more languages than any word processor or operating system I've ever seen. (Here I do mean the end user definition of an OS such as Windows, Mac OS X, Ubuntu, etc; not just the CS definition of OS) Maybe there's a Linux distro somewhere that supports Cherokee, Cambodian, or Amharic. There certainly isn't Windows or Mac OS X that does though. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@m... Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published! http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
