Re: [Groff] Re: preconv supported encodings

[Pedro A . López-Valencia]

On 1/3/06, D. E. Evans wrote:
>Bruno Haible wrote:
>
>    This list contains no CPxxx encodings, in particular no WINDOWS-xxxx
>    encodings.  Microsoft continues to extend these encodings over
>    and over again, with the result that, say, a text written today
>    in CP950 on a Windows-XP machine is not readable as CP950 on an
>    earlier version of the same OS. For this reason, the use of these
>    encodings for manpages would be suboptimal.
>
> Windows is on Unicode now, anyways.  Stick with Unicode, and
> ignore the rest of the Windows encodings.

This is unrealistic to say the least. The fact that MS Windows NT uses
UCS2-LE for its  internal representation of text and in the NTFS
filesystem filename tables, (resorting to ugly hacks to let you
believe you can actually hande files with a CJK name without trouble
in an Western European setup untill you actually try it, believe me I
have), has absolutely nothing to do with end user working
environments.

MS uses CP encodings for end-user interaction and that won't be
changing in the forseeable future, AFAIK. If you can point me to the
MSDN article that proves me wrong, I'll galdly eat my hat ;-).

--
Pedro A. López-Valencia