Is m17n a type of unicode? http://unicode.org makes no mention of it
that I can see. And http://m17n.org make no mention of unicode. Why is
this? In general terms, I think m17n is a type of unicode. Is there a
political disagreement between them or a technical one?
I ask this because I understand that future versions of Ruby will use
m17n to address issues that others use unicode to address. Could someone
who understands this take the time to explain the differences?
Unicode says, lets make ONE universal character set and map all our strings into it.
m17n says not every language is the same, not every concept of a character is the same, let's support all the languages and character sets we can.
Ruby's m17n will have support for Unicode, but it will be an option for an encoding, not the only encoding.
···
On Jun 25, 2006, at 12:56 PM, brad tilley wrote:
Please forgive my ignorance.
Is m17n a type of unicode? http://unicode.org makes no mention of it
that I can see. And http://m17n.org make no mention of unicode. Why is
this? In general terms, I think m17n is a type of unicode. Is there a
political disagreement between them or a technical one?
I ask this because I understand that future versions of Ruby will use
m17n to address issues that others use unicode to address. Could someone
who understands this take the time to explain the differences?