From: mathew Date: 2008-09-21T00:03:28+09:00 Subject: [ruby-core:18759] Re: Character encodings - a radical suggestion ------=_Part_92939_17154430.1221923480514 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Tim Bray wrote: > Actually, I think it would be perfectly OK to remove runtime support for > UTF-16, if you make input and output possible. I can't think of any > practical advantages to handling multiple UCS encodings, for regexing or > parsing or splitting or matching. UTF-16 is horrible; C# and Java will be > paying the price for choosing 16-bit characters long after we're dead. -Tim > I agree with this. I haven't looked at Ruby 1.9, but I don't see any point in supporting UTF-16, UTF-16BE, and UTF-16LE as internal encodings. So long as you can read and write them, I say keep the complexity out of Ruby's internals and convert to UTF-8 internally. mathew -- ------=_Part_92939_17154430.1221923480514 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@sun.com> wrote:
Actually, I think it would be perfectly OK to remove runtime support for UTF-16, if you make input and output possible.  I can't think of any practical advantages to handling multiple UCS encodings, for regexing or parsing or splitting or matching.  UTF-16 is horrible; C# and Java will be paying the price for choosing 16-bit characters long after we're dead.  -Tim

I agree with this. I haven't looked at Ruby 1.9, but I don't see any point in supporting UTF-16, UTF-16BE, and UTF-16LE as internal encodings. So long as you can read and write them, I say keep the complexity out of Ruby's internals and convert to UTF-8 internally.


mathew
--
<URL:http://www.pobox.com/~meta/>
------=_Part_92939_17154430.1221923480514--