Talk:International Components for Unicode

October 2006

I've just expanded the article a little and made some corrections. I used 2 sources not referenced in the article:

At one stage, IBM sold a C++ kit called the "Taligent Internationalization Library". I don't know if this came from CommonPoint, or was an early name for ICU4C.

Perhaps the article should mention a major design difference between ICU and C locales? In ICU, locales are just labels that a program can use to load an appropriate formatter, date converter, string bundle, etc. In C, locales carry all the locale-specific information with them, so one setlocale() call can change all locale-related settings.

Cheers, CWC(talk) 07:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

User Hdante (talk · contribs) has tagged the article with Template:POV-check for the words "much richer", in the sentence

ICU provides much richer internationalization facilities than the standard libraries for C or C++, and most operating systems.

Being richer than standard C or C++ is quite easy. Being richer than "standard Unix" isn't much harder.

Presumably Hdante is concerned that ICU is not "much richer" than operating systems such as Windows (see Uniscribe) and OS X (see ATSUI). Note that Uniscribe and ATSUI both provide rendering, whereas ICU does not. Can someone familiar with Uniscribe and ATSUI tell us how they compare to ICU for text processing? Cheers, CWC(talk) 03:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]