X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <4692832A.3080108@cygwin.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:49:14 -0400
From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh@cygwin.com>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070505 Remi/2.0.0.0-3.fc4.remi Thunderbird/2.0.0.0 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: status of utf-8 patch
References: <3058f9b40707090419w3b475aa1j74396a5dad5aacd9@mail.gmail.com> 	 <46921D75.29CE8798@dessent.net> <f6tn6v$rpu$1@sea.gmane.org> 	 <46927899.60609@cygwin.com> <3058f9b40707091122o5ab30b8ci717c93bedf537796@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3058f9b40707091122o5ab30b8ci717c93bedf537796@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com

<http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#TOFU>.  Reformatted.

Ariel Burbaickij wrote:
> On 7/9/07, Larry Hall (Cygwin) <reply-to-list-only-lh <AT> cygwin <DOT> com> wrote:
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

<http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PCYMTNQREAIYR>  Please, let's not feed the
spammers.


>> Matt Seitz wrote:
>> > "Brian Dessent" <brian <AT> dessent <DOT> net> wrote in message
>> > news:46921D75.29CE8798@dessent.net...
>> >> Ariel Burbaickij wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> question: what is  the status of utf-8 patch fo cygwin? Is it
>> >> You can find all the details in the mailing list archives.
>> >> <http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2006-q3/msg00014.html>
>> >>
>> >>> endorsed/supported?
>> >> It was submitted and rejected on technical grounds, which means sadly
>> >> it's not supported here.
>> >
>> > The explanation I saw for the rejection was "...it should just be a
>> > wholesale replacement, not a bunch of wrappers around existing 
>> functions."
>> >
>> > It's now a year later.  Is there an expectation that the "wholesale
>> > replacement" or another solution is coming soon?  What would be the 
>> harm in
>> > adopting the current solution for now?  Is this a case of "the 
>> perfect is
>> > the enemy of the good"?
>>
>>
>> No.  It's more like the "the limited hack is the enemy of future 
>> progress".
>> It should be _a_little_ easier to implement something maintainable with
>> 1.7 code (in CVS), since Win9x support is no longer a requirement.
>>
> Have you some outlines of this something given WIn 9x support can be
> dropped, indeed?


Not really, no.  But Win9x definitely complicated the API and forced Cygwin
down a path that is the genesis of this problem.  Removing the requirements
to support these limited O/S versions should make UNICODE/UTF8 support
cleaner.


-- 
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd.                          (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/