Re: Standardized encoding names for iconv_open()

["Antoine Leca" <Antoine-Freetype@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday, May 19, 2004 6:14 PM, Markus Kuhn wrote:
>   "UTF-16"             UTF-16 (same byte order as C's short)
>   "UTF-32"             UTF-32 (same byte order as C's long)

Why are you (do you seem to be, in fact) requiring that short should be 16
bits or long being 32 (the latter is a particular nuisance these days, of
course).

I understand the below idea is the peculiar (and atypical) byte order of
Dennis Ritchie's implementation of long on the PDP-11. However, even htonl
or ntohs do no imply relationship between short/long and 16/32 bitness,
except in the acronym (this is similar to gmtime).

Certainly a better point would be to have direct mapping with uint16_t[] and
uint32_t[].


> This minimum requirement would therefore not put
> any unreasonable burden on the implementors of even low-memory
> footprint implementations.

By the way: <iconv.h> is not "really" POSIX in the strict sense, it is XSI
(which does not target low-memory footprint, as I understand things.)


Antoine



--
Linux-UTF8:   i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive:      http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/