home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!sh.wide!wnoc-tyo-news!cs.titech!titccy.cc.titech!necom830!mohta
- From: mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta)
- Newsgroups: comp.std.internat
- Subject: Re: Dumb Americans (was INTERNATIONALIZATION: JAPAN, FAR EAST)
- Keywords: Unicode ISO10646 CharacterEncoding
- Message-ID: <2771@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp>
- Date: 21 Jan 93 17:24:36 GMT
- References: <1993Jan9.024546.26934@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <1in2c8INNmbj@life.ai.mit.edu> <2675@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> <1ippo5INN7b3@life.ai.mit.edu>
- Sender: news@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp
- Organization: Tokyo Institute of Technology
- Lines: 30
-
- In article <1ippo5INN7b3@life.ai.mit.edu>
- glenn@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu (Glenn A. Adams) writes:
-
- >>On the other hand, one can't use process code for interchange, unless
- >>you are living in the closed world, because other applications won't
- >>accept it.
-
- >Oh, how about ASCII? It makes a pretty decent process *and* interchange
- >code for English text.
-
- ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange.
-
- As I stated, there is no reason that we can't use interchange code for
- processing.
-
- Likewise, we can use UTF for processing.
-
- >>You should be crazy. If you are mapping a file under possibly networked
- >>environment (these days, all environments are so), you can't use multiple
- >>octet fixed width code because of endeaness. Don't say signature, because
- >>it makes everything complex and, thus, slow, and your reasoning to map
- >>files should be for efficiency and for simplicity.
-
- >Signatures are a far cry simpler than variable length encodings.
-
- Dependence on global state is much worse than variable length encoding.
-
- You can't even concatinate files.
-
- Masataka Ohta
-