[Development] ICU decision?

Knoll Lars Lars.Knoll at digia.com
Wed Aug 7 10:00:27 CEST 2013

On 07.08.13 01:37, "Thiago Macieira" <thiago.macieira at intel.com> wrote:

>On quarta-feira, 7 de agosto de 2013 00:22:59, John Layt wrote:
>> The  question really then is how to expose the advanced features from
>> optional ICU:
>> * Separate module
>That's fallback.
>> * In QtCore, but classes only available on Win32 if ICU used
>That's out of the question.

Yes, that's no good solution.
>> * In QtCore, but with a Win32 backend that has a degraded experience if
>> not used
>The only "degraded experience" I would accept is "full functionality for
>C and 
>system locales". It would be acceptable for the classes to not have any
>support for other locales, like trying to get number formatting for
>Azerbaijani on a German Windows.

That would be acceptable for now IMO.

The third option we discussed:

* Require ICU, but have a 'fake' ICU lib available to deploy with Qt on
Windows/Android for those who want to ship with minimal i18n support. Add
some support to our packaging to choose which ICU lib to take.

Long term, I think I'd prefer the 3rd option.


More information about the Development mailing list