Peter Prymmer <pvhp(_at_)forte(_dot_)com> writes:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
Thank you for the clarification. I note that in the perl(_at_)11359
distribution there is a difference in file size for what appear to be
equivalent *.enc and *.ucm files. For example:
% ls -l ext/Encode/Encode/posix-bc*
-r--r--r-- 1 pvhp system 1102 Jul 9 07:10
ext/Encode/Encode/posix-bc.enc
-r--r--r-- 1 pvhp system 9847 Jul 9 07:10
ext/Encode/Encode/posix-bc.ucm
% ls -l ext/Encode/Encode/ascii.*
-r--r--r-- 1 pvhp system 1090 Jul 9 07:09
ext/Encode/Encode/ascii.enc
-r--r--r-- 1 pvhp system 4554 Jul 9 07:09
ext/Encode/Encode/ascii.ucm
Which is understandable given the format differences. Is it the case that
we can get rid of one format in favor of the other?
The plan is to keep the .ucm files.
Do you foresee
maintenance of support for both formats?
I didn't, but now we have escape encodings based of Tcl scheme
thanks to Sadahiro Tomoyuki I need to see if that extends its life.
Weighed against file size and
licensing considerations (and whatever else might be relevant) which
format would you favor (in other words can we trim down the size of the
perl tar ball)? Thank you.
The Tcl format is compact, but is not as rich and is non-standard.
The UCM format is based on one of the "Posix" standards.
Peter Prymmer
--
Nick Ing-Simmons
http://www.ni-s.u-net.com/
