All,
I agree with Don, considering that UTF-8 is now mandated for all IETF
standards that contain text, and hence has to supported in things like IPP.
Carl-Uno
> -----Original Message-----
> From: don@lexmark.com [mailto:don@lexmark.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 7:23 AM
> To: nschade@xionics.com
> Cc: upd@pwg.org
> Subject: Re: UPD> Unicode support
>
>
> I too believe UTF-8 is the way to go.
>
> **********************************************
> * Don Wright don@lexmark.com *
> * Director, Strategic & Technical Alliances *
> * Lexmark International *
> * 740 New Circle Rd *
> * Lexington, Ky 40550 *
> * 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax) *
> **********************************************
>
>
>
> nschade%xionics.com@interlock.lexmark.com on 02/14/2000 03:32:57 PM
>
> To: upd%pwg.org@interlock.lexmark.com
> cc: (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
> Subject: UPD> Unicode support
>
>
>
> It became apparent that we need a unique way of identifying
> characters when
> dealing with them in different operating systems with different
> configurations.
> The only option coming up was Unicode. It would be used in two areas:
> 1. Technical spec of fonts
> Especially the handling of character sets requires a neutral
> and consistent
> way to identify characters.
> 2. Dialogs
> Any Universal Printer Driver will have a dialog. Some other
> strings like
> font names will even be passed through to applications.
> It would be a huge problem to have different conditions for
> storing these
> strings based on different operating system character sets.
>
> While there seemed to be a wide consensus about the use of Unicode to
> accomplish that every company shall have the chance to discuss this
> internally and check current policies.
> It needs a little more investigation to find out about the appropriate
> encoding form. It will most probably be either UTF-8 or UTF-16. When
> searching in the Internet it looks as if UTF-8 is the current
> leader in
> industry standards. Saving the Unicode in the theoretic
> default value of
> four bytes is not an option.
> We'll wait til end of March 2000 for statements. After that
> there will be a
> time to vote on that.
>
> While chatting around I found a number of XML editors either
> available or
> under development, which support at least UTF-8. So this
> should not be a
> problem at all.
> Norbert
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 17 2000 - 11:15:03 EST