Thank you, Terry, for describing why UNICODE is 32bit.

My point is

1. 16bit is not sufficient for sizeof(wchar_t), at least 32bit is
  needed, because some character-sets (including UNICODE) is 32bit.

2. Supporting UNICODE is OK. But supporting *only* UNICODE is not OK,
  because it lacks compatibility with existing systems. (Many people
  want to use plain ISO-8859-1, plain ISO-8859-2, Japanese EUC, Korean
  EUC, ...)
  UNICODE should be supported as one of the locales in general I18N
  framework. (like X11R6) Modern UNIX systems is apparently going this
  way.

>>>>> On Sat, 24 Aug 1996 18:15:31 -0400,
	"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> said:

> Again, if we supported UNICODE, we might no longer care about
> supporting multiple character sets since we would have virtually every
> character anyone would ever want.

When will it come ?
It takes very long time, if we choose the way to cooperate with
existing systems, because many American/European people want to
continue to use plain ASCII or plain ISO-8859-1 (and many Asian people
want to use current their encodings).

> (Fonts in X become a problem, of course...)

Yes, if we support *ONLY* UNICODE.
--
soda@sra.co.jp		Software Research Associates, Inc., Japan
(Noriyuki Soda)		   software tools and technology group