On Nov 28 05:19, Eric Blake wrote: > According to Linda Walsh on 11/28/2009 3:24 AM:
> > Any other standards group I know of is going UTF-8. All of the > > linux distributions I know are going UTF-8. I'd like to see Cygwin > > go that way too. I don't understand this one. What on earth are you think we're doing? Do you really understand the sense of the mapping? > > But barring any other changes, I'd really, (like pretty please!) > > like to see them mapped to their, reserved-visual, but semantically > > impotent equivalents. > > http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PTC > > Rather than complaining, write a patch to prove your point. Patches speak > much louder than rants on open source projects. But I won't be the one > writing the patch. But that mapping doesn't make sense. Instead of mapping valid, but forbidden characters into a range which doesn't contain valid characters, the valid characters are then mapped onto other valid characters. How are you going to ever map them back? When is a FULLWIDTH QUOTATION MARK actually a QUOTATION MARK and not really a FULLWIDTH QUOTATION MARK? You're covering perfectly valid characters and make them unusable. Besides, we have not only to map the few characters you're talking about, the U+f0XX range is also used to map invalid UTF-8 chars. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
