Message-Id: <200409110336.i8B3awEd024602@delorie.com> Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" To: "'Colin JN Breame'" , Subject: RE: OT: RE: filesystem encoding Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:36:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <41416CE6.3080005@chameleonnet.co.uk> X-IsSubscribed: yes > Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: > > >Welcome to the 21st century, where computers can't even > unambiguously > >represent written text. > > > > > Isn't this something unicode was meant to solve? Yes, and if implemented properly, it mostly does. > or does > unicode still need a codepage to map to glyphs? No, not a system-wide one anyway. IIRC (and I'm no Unicode expert), the verbage in the specs talk about "codepages" (or something like that) a lot, but it's a few bits in each character that specify something similar to the ASCII/ISO-style codepages, the end result being that each individual Unicode character is unambiguously represented[1]. -- Gary R. Van Sickle [1] Gross oversimplification alert. Some of the Asian languages have characters who's precise glyph depends on the previous character, and I think that introduces some context sensitivity. Ah well, we have to leave *something* for the 31st century folks to fix. :-(. -- 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/