Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: "Unicode" Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2016 17:16:18 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 74 Message-ID: References: <57ca82af.1170031@news.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="945944de09706c9b4e29b53c9d2efdc2"; logging-data="8533"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+a/0tkOId+7RDH45WH6J4Z" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:CzMhq71+0v+aSXiiigT57zacYJQ= sha1:8R4GCiOGTNKCLoONw4U6F4XteV0= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:44890 comp.lang.c:93241 "Alf P. Steinbach" writes: > On 06.09.2016 01:17, Keith Thompson wrote: [...] >> My point is that "Windows ANSI" is a misnomer. > > In that, you're right. > > But I have not written or implied it's not. You use the phrase without pointing out that it's incorrect. > Please provide a quote to back up that implied assertion. From upthread: Unfortunately in Windows the default g++ standard library implementations expect Windows ANSI, i.e. incompatible with the compiler's C++ execution character set, and there's no way to change the locale to an UTF-8 one. >> The character sets in question were intended to be an ANSI standard(s), > > No. > > Windows ANSI Western, codepage 1252, was based on a draft of ISO > Latin-1, then, as I recall, developed in cooperation between the ANSI > institute in America, and its French counterpart. > > It was not intended to an ANSI standard: it was possibly intended to be > one-way compatible with the ANSI standard ISO Latin-1, since it is a > strict superset. > > Regarding the other Windows ANSI character sets they include e.g. Shift > JIS, which has almost no relation to Windows ANSI Western. > > I believe some of them are ANSI and ISO standards, but maybe not. > > >> but they were never approved. > > Please provide evidence that they were submitted for standardization. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_code_page#ANSI_code_page : ANSI Windows code pages, and especially the code page 1252, were called that way since they were purportedly based on drafts submitted or intended for ANSI. However, ANSI and ISO have not standardized any of these code pages. My statement seems to have been imprecise. >> The collection of code pages sometimes referred to as >> "Windows ANSI" have nothing to do with the American National Standards >> Institute. > > In that, you're right. > > But I have not written or implied the opposite. > > I think you're just trying to associate with me with the silly notions > that you APPEAR to be arguing against. > > If so then that's not very honest argumentation. I think you're overreacting to my criticism. You referred to "Windows ANSI". There's really no such thing, though it's a common misuse. [snip] -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc. "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"