gcj 3.0/unicode

Mon Jun 25 21:34:00 GMT 2001

> > And I seem to remember that when I used the
> > 2.x tables I found errors in them. OTOH the online docs pretty clear
> > say "Unicode 2.0" (something they didn't say before JDK 1.3, at least
> > as far as I remember). Maybe we ought to downgrade. Comments?
>> I'd say "downgrade". I seem to recall the Unicode revision being part
> of the JLS, though that might be wrong. If it's in the language spec,
> it's expected that apps will rely on it. And Javadoc specs 2.0 any
> place it says more than "Unicode".

Hmm, I just saw Cedric's note (1.4 switched to 3.0, but not 3.1,
from 2.0) ... maybe "downgrade to 3.0" then!
I think this particular software is atypical in its requirements, since
it wants to achieve conformance against a function of the 2.0 tables,
while most applications will probably be content to leave all such
details toUnicode libraries.
- Dave
> On the other hand, that logic would say that applications can't ever
> rely on java.lang.Character to baseline their own Unicode conformance,
> since they couldn't expect that behavior to be stable. I don't expect
> many would want their own copies of the Unicode tables, or get them
> very consistently right/fast if they did choose to incorporate them.