Why UTF-8/16 character encodings?

[Marcin Mstowski]

On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Joakim <joakim at airpost.net> wrote:

> On Sunday, 26 May 2013 at 19:20:15 UTC, Marcin Mstowski wrote:
>
>> Character Data Representation
>> Architecture<http://www-01.**ibm.com/software/**globalization/cdra/<http://www-01.ibm.com/software/globalization/cdra/>
>> >by
>>
>> IBM. It is what you want to do with additions and it is available
>> since
>> 1995.
>> When you come up with an inventive idea, i suggest you to first check what
>> was already done in that area and then rethink this again to check if you
>> can do this better or improve existing solution. Other approaches are
>> usually waste of time and efforts, unless you are doing this for fun or
>> you
>> can't use existing solutions due to problems with license, copyrights,
>> price, etc.
>>
> You might be right, but I gave it a quick look and can't make out what the
> encoding actually is.  There is an appendix that lists several possible
> encodings, including UTF-8!
>

Yes, because they didn't reinvent wheel from scratch and are reusing
existing encodings as a base. There isn't any problem with adding another
code page.


> Also, one of the first pages talks about representations of floating point
> and integer numbers, which are outside the purview of the text encodings
> we're talking about.


They are outside of scope of CDRA too. At least read picture description
before making out of context assumptions.


> I cannot possibly be expected to know about every dead format out there.


Nobody expect that.


> If you can show that it is materially similar to my single-byte encoding
> idea, it might be worth looking into.
>

Spending ~15 min to read Introduction isn't worth your time, so why should
i waste my time showing you anything ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20130526/85d28da5/attachment-0001.html>