rsharpe at richardsharpe.com
Sun Mar 7 04:04:50 GMT 2004
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Kenichi Okuyama wrote:
> >> I do agree with you that one of the most favorable filesystem
> >> charset is UTF-8, but FS charset is not something we can have
> >> control over.
> Michael> UTF-8 is favorable because it is a Unicode encoding that can be used
> Michael> directly with the filesystem api. My understanding was that Japanese could
> Michael> be adequately represented using Unicode. I would very much like to see
> Michael> specific examples where this is not true. Please provide a link so that I
> Michael> can educate myself. I sincerely want to make my C projects as accessible
> Michael> as I can.
> You believe that 'Unicode can be used' as long as interface is
> 'UTF-8'. Well ofcourse that's true. But 'Unicode is not one and only
> way to describe Japanese' or should I say 'Unicode only contains
> very small subset of Japanese'. So very fact that UTF-8 is
> supporting some Japanese, do not means they support ENOUGH.
Are you saying that UTF-8 does not encode all the Japanese glyphs that
Japanese people want to use?
This is a genuine question. I do not known the answer and it seems to me
like that is what you are saying.
Richard Sharpe, rsharpe[at]richardsharpe.com, rsharpe[at]samba.org,
More information about the samba-technical