🚀 go-pugleaf

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