Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!longway!std-unix
From: keld@diku.dk (Keld J|rn Simonsen)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: 8859 vs. 646
Message-ID: <590@longway.TIC.COM>
Date: 22 Mar 90 17:58:16 GMT
References: <579@longway.TIC.COM>
Sender: std-unix@longway.TIC.COM
Reply-To: std-unix@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Department Of Computer Science, University Of Copenhagen
Lines: 28
Approved: jsq@longway.tic.com (Moderator, John S. Quarterman)
X-Charset: US-DK
X-Char-Esc: 29

From: keld@diku.dk (Keld J|rn Simonsen)

I confess: I was the Dane attending the ISO POSIX Internationalization
meeting in Copenhagen. Yes, we attracted the attention to ISO 646
based non-ASCII equipment - which there are general guidelines
within ISO to work with.

I do share the other posters' concern about supporting 8-bit
and multibyte character sets, and bringing support to this
is more important to us (Danish Standards) than the 7-bit issue.

On the other hand, there is a lot of hardware, including terminals
and printers, which only supports national variants
of ISO 646. And that equipment will be around for a long time.

For Americans: try to imagine that all your 7-bit ASCII equipment
was not usable for running UNIX or C. It lacked some say 6 to 10
essential characters. How long would it take before you only
would have 8-bit equipment and software running?
Well, this is the situation we have in quite some parts of Europe.

ISO has rules for dealing with this. I think it would be worth
it to try out the ISO recommendations on a software
platform as important to the whole society as POSIX is.

Keld Simonsen

Volume-Number: Volume 19, Number 21