Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> Furthermore, I think Java is broken enough here that Java needs to change. > I don't think XML should be limited by this brain damage in Java. I think "broken" is seriously overstating things. It's not a real issue "now", and in fact if you accept that UTF-16 is native, the issue is just a lack of support for a missing feature that's got workarounds. Anyone who really needs such support can code it themselves; it's clear things could be better, but there's no fatal problem. Just a need for an overdue (!) update to the standard Java library. > One silver > lining to the Blueberry cloud might be that it could convince Sun to use a > four-byte char like they should have back in 1995. Nah, people complain enough about wasted space ... admittedly there's a religous war on whether (in C terms) "wchar_t" should be 16 bits or 32. But I did expect Sun would have addressed the issue of variable length characters in Java by now. The paper David Jackson pointed to (http://www.unicode.org/iuc/iuc16/b17/paper.pdf) is from last year, but the issues weren't new then. Variable length characters show up in the case of combining marks there, not just with surrogate pairs, and a 32-bit wchar_t won't help with the case of combining marks: fat wchar_t isn't sufficient. - Dave
|
