Re: Simple string conversion from UCS2 to ISO8859-1

On 22/02/2025 13:11, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On 22.02.2025 12:29, David Brown wrote:

>
As the OP explained in a reply to one of my posts, he is getting data in
in UCS-2 format from SMS's from a modem.  [...]

 (Yes. I wrote: "have got clear after a subsequent post".)
 

>
Whether Latin-1 or Latin-9 is better will depend on his application.

 (Was also my stance upthread; "If that is possible for your context")
 

The
additional characters in Latin-9, with the exception of the Euro symbol,
are pretty obscure

 ISTR they are some language specific symbols, so probably less obscure
to someone from those countries.
 

The point (as I said below) is that adding these letters (š, ž, œ) makes very little difference to anyone because they are not enough to let them write their language properly.  Sure, someone writing Czech might have regular use of the letter ž - but with Latin-9 they can't write the letters ť, ř, ď or several other Czech letters.  So it provides little benefit to most people who have those letters in their alphabet.  If you want to let people write their languages properly (something I strongly support), you need much fuller Unicode support - unless you are working specifically with Sami, Finnish or Estonian, the only benefit of moving from Latin-1 to Latin-9 is for the Euro symbol.

- it's unlikely that you'd need them and not need a
good deal more other characters (i.e., supporting much more of Unicode).

 

As for why not use UTF-8, the answer is clearly simplicity.

 This was not my point (someone else suggested that).

<snip>

You should address that to the other poster. :-)
 

I was making a single reply that covered both parts - I know you didn't write the bits you quoted from further up-thread.