Thaddeus H. Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We are not speaking of a stricken Polish L, a > double-accented Magyar O, or a euro sign. We are > speaking of... well, to tell the truth I have no idea > what these letters are. Have you? More to the point, > should you and I learn to recognize such letters? > Should we expect basic Latin terminal fonts to cover > them? Is it reasonable to marginalize the =E1's and =FC's > of Latin-1 by lumping them with the "squat reversed > esh"?
Why is it important that you recognise them? I can't see any reasonable argument against UTF-8 that doesn't also remove anything other than ascii. > In my view, a terminal which cannot correctly display > the "=E1" is somewhat broken, and a user who does not > recognize the "=E1" probably should learn. I would not > say the same with respect to the "squat reversed esh". > However, this is just my view. Defining the character set as utf-8 means that any non-unicode capable application is going to have issues, yes. But so does defining the character set as anything other than ascii - people using a non-8859-1 terminal encoding won't be able to read any of the non-ascii characters in the file. The only two character sets that make any sense whatsoever in the Unix world are ascii and UTF-8. I'd be happy with either, but I've got a fairly anglo-centric viewpoint. I can see a strong argument for maintainers actually being allowed to spell their name properly, even if pragmatism suggests that we want a latinised version available as well. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
