![]()
![]() While the compiler should always have required a non locale based. std::string, and all string functions in C should always have contained/ required explicit if default encoding information, and the streams should always have had encoding defaults for its input and output. Which really isn't surprising, char and uchar should always have been byte, char should not have existed. But yeah, no way to fix this without breaking/deprecating abi /api in C,C++. it seemed like such a beautiful dream for a moment. WHEN POSSIBLE USE THE DEFAULT TEXT ENCODING IN REPLIES CODEHowever, recent releases have used the ANSI code page and -A APIs as a means to introduce UTF-8 support to apps.Īh. WHEN POSSIBLE USE THE DEFAULT TEXT ENCODING IN REPLIES WINDOWS> Until recently, Windows has emphasized "Unicode" -W variants over -A APIs. Personally I think doing I/O as UTF-8 on Windows is the right direction, as Microsoft have been enhancing UTF-8 support in Windows for quite a while now. ![]() > All of the examples that come with Boost.Locale are designed for UTF-8 and it is the default encoding used by Boost.Locale. you also need to handle date, time and currency formatting/parsing, message formatting, and to enable translations. To do I/O properly across platforms you may need wrappers for the standard output streams that will handle conversion for you, sure, but. Personally I've enjoyed using the tiny-weeny header only utfcpp for simple manipulation of UTF-8 and unicode-to-unicode conversions, and typically use Boost.Locale when I need to do I/O.ĩ5% of localization problems have almost nothing to do with encoding. Why are the examples for ztd.text writing UTF-16 to std::cout? Won't this fail on Linux where UTF-16 is rarely used and terminals typically default to UTF-8? The only reason direction signalling is supported at all is because it’s needed. Text direction signalling is another troublesome area of Unicode there are multiple techniques, some strongly discouraged, and it’s a perennial source of interesting security bugs. (And this is why they were strongly discouraged from the start.) The Unicode 5.2.0 specification linked goes on to show various of the reasons why this sort of tagging is generally problematic and should not be used in normal text. In-band signalling in Unicode in general is fraught. In Unicode 5.2, I think, this range was elevated from “strongly discouraged” to “deprecated”. (, heading “13.7 Tag Characters (new section)”.) Right from their introduction, their use was “strongly discouraged”: they’re designed for use with special protocols, with out-of band tagging preferred. Unicode 3.1 introduced U+E0000–U+E007F for in-band language tagging, using what’s now called BCP 47 language tags.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |