Re: What "Unicode support" really means

On 5 Mar 2014, at 20:28, Crypto Compress <cryptocompress@googlemail.com> wrote: > Hi, > >> ...UTF-8 is the only practical solution... > > reconsider! > > Am 04.03.2014 23:57, schrieb Rowan Collins: > >> Ruby has a rather different take on the problem [2] which it calls "m17n" >> ("multilingualization"), where every string carries an encoding with it, and string >> functions can be implemented independently for different encodings rather than all strings being >> converted to "one true encoding" internally. > > cryptocompress Well, that’s a “solution”. Which I expect is even less practical. Please, can we simply use Unicode as the “one true encoding”? In very rare applications where people have to, say, deal with the North Korean character set, mbstring will still exist, as will binary strings. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/