From: Austin Ziegler Date: 2006-06-29T20:10:24+09:00 Subject: Re: Unicode roadmap? On 6/29/06, Juergen Strobel wrote: > I don't think you can possibly cater to everyone here. Simplicissity, > Flexibility, Performance, take any two. My impression is that M17N is > going for maximum flexibility with good performance, but for > e.g. Unicode only users there'll be some extra complexity to be aware > of. I don't think you'll sacrifice Unicode users totally, but it is > not your top priority either. Um. You make the same error, I think, that some others have. There are two measures of complexity to be measured. The first is implementation complexity. The second is use complexity. I fully expect that the implementation of the m17nString is going to be complex. (I think it will be simpler than most naysayers are suggesting, but it will certainly be more complex than anything that currently exists.) However, I believe that the use complexity -- that is, the external API in both C (for extensions) and Ruby --- is going to be relatively low. Maybe a little more complex than we have today. The *actual* complexity in use is going to depend on your needs. If you're dealing with Unicode and binary data only -- as will likely be the case -- you will find it much easier to use than someone who has to deal with multiple encodings at once. -austin -- Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/ * austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/ * austin@zieglers.ca