Re: [boost] Re: Unicode in C++; Was: New file uploaded to boost

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-26 15:04:29

At 01:31 PM 9/26/2001, Matt Austern wrote:

 >dietmar_kuehl_at_[hidden] wrote:
 >
 >> I disagree and actually I think that it makes sense to even provide
 >> XML parsing and processing facilities on ASCII characters: The
 >> processor would have two modes, a fast one using ASCII only files
 >> and a conforming, slower one using Unicode characters. The XML
 >> specification requires that the latter works but doesn't object
 >> to the former one.
 >
 >In practice I find that I never use ASCII; I use iso-8859-1 instead,
 >which is a better match for HTML.  (Also a better match for the LWG
 >issues list.  It helps to be able to write your name.)

(Dietmar's last name is really Kühl but in ASCII has to be written as 
Kuehl)

In commercial software I also use ISO-8859-1 (Latin-1) rather than 
ASCII.  One caveat - it is much easier if char is unsigned.  An existing 
code base failed miserably in dozens of places when first moving from ASCII 
to ISO-8859-1, but worked right away once we set the compiler to treat char 
as unsigned.

--Beman