Re: AfxMessageBox?
- From: David Wilkinson <no-reply@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 04:10:36 -0500
Mihai N. wrote:
Maybe because many Unix systems had the good sense to go with UTF-8.
This is very debatable. I don't see it as good sense, but as laziness.
I can tell you that in the Unicode world (UTC and such) UTF-16 is regarded
as the better option for processing, and utf-8 better for transfer/storage.
Hi Mihai:
We have discussed this before. And I'm sure we will again...
I would agree with you, except that unfortunately there are now surrogate pairs in UTF-16. This means that any program that does string manipulation assuming each wchar_t is a single character is technically incorrect, and could fail. Microsoft 16-bit "Unicode" no longer has the advantage that motivated its creation.
I confess that one reason I like UTF-8 is that is backward compatible with code that assumed all ASCII characters. Is this what you mean by lazy?
David Wilkinson
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: AfxMessageBox?
- From: Mihai N.
- Re: AfxMessageBox?
- References:
- Re: AfxMessageBox?
- From: Mark Randall
- Re: AfxMessageBox?
- From: Tom Serface
- Re: AfxMessageBox?
- From: David Ching
- Re: AfxMessageBox?
- From: David Wilkinson
- Re: AfxMessageBox?
- From: David Ching
- Re: AfxMessageBox?
- From: David Wilkinson
- Re: AfxMessageBox?
- From: David Ching
- Re: AfxMessageBox?
- From: David Wilkinson
- Re: AfxMessageBox?
- From: Mihai N.
- Re: AfxMessageBox?
- Prev by Date: Re: Problem with multiple definition of std object
- Next by Date: Re: AfxMessageBox?
- Previous by thread: Re: AfxMessageBox?
- Next by thread: Re: AfxMessageBox?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|