23 ms·
Precisely. Programs that internally use ShiftJIS, for instance, would stop functioning on UTF-16 enforced compatability or normalization. They're currently "b
by freeone3000 9y ago
Precisely.
Programs that internally use ShiftJIS, for instance, would stop functioning on UTF-16 enforced compatability or normalization. They're currently "broken" (as in, operating incorrectly) but in a way that works.
- leeter 9y agoCan you explain why this would be the case? In theory this shouldn't be an issue because any ShiftJIS conversion to Unicode should be reversible.
- TazeTSchnitzel 9y agoI think it's not a perfect round-trip due to differences in how the two standards encode certain characters. You will get a correct conversion either way, but the result of a round-trip might not be bit-identical.
- rspeer 9y agoIt should be reversible, sure. Just let me know when you find a standardized, correct, one-to-one mapping between JIS codepoints and Unicode codepoints. Also make sure it hasn't changed in the lifetime of the oldest software that anyone is using.
- freeone3000 9y agoThe apps I'm thinking of write bytes, not strings. If you enforced UTF-16 compatibility, they'd have to say what encoding they're using (they don't) or convert it themselves (they don't) - and changing either of these would require at least an application recompile. The reason they currently work is because bytes out == bytes in, so they can read the files they create, despite what mojibake the user sees.