Yes, it does make sense to pick the 'most common' interpretation of a
particular label, in the absence of a platform tag. That is part of
the work that George is doing.
Mark
—————
Πόλλ’ ἠπίστατο ἔργα, κακῶς δ’ ἠπίστατο πάντα — Ὁμήρου Μαργίτῃ
[For transliteration, see http://oss.software.ibm.com/cgi-bin/icu/tr]
http://www.macchiato.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yves Arrouye" <yves(_at_)realnames(_dot_)com>
To: "'Mark Davis (jtcsv)'" <mark(_at_)macchiato(_dot_)com>; "Nick Ing-Simmons"
<nick(_at_)ing-simmons(_dot_)net>
Cc: <dankogai(_at_)dan(_dot_)co(_dot_)jp>; <perl-unicode(_at_)perl(_dot_)org>;
"SADAHIRO Tomoyuki"
<bqw10602(_at_)nifty(_dot_)com>;
<icu(_at_)www-124(_dot_)southbury(_dot_)usf(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>; "Unicode"
<unicode(_at_)unicode(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 15:55
Subject: RE: ICU's uconv vs Linux iconv and UTF-8
It is definitely a problem to try to interpret what any given
label is
supposed to be. The problem is that MIME labels and others are
ambiguous, and are interpreted different ways on different
systems.
Still, in the meantime it does make sense to have EUC-JP associated
to the
most common interpretation of it, doesn't it? Just for the sake of
user
satisfaction?
I am curious: is there a "better name" for the EUC-JP that ICU is
using,
that would make everybody understand which one it is? If so, we
could have
EUC-JP for the one that the rest of the world wants.
YA
