Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > You seem to be avoiding the question here -- patch slang1, use > slang1-ja, or make a new slang1-wide package with these patches?
It's hardly feasible to make a version of slang1 that works in UTF-8 and is bug-free and binary-compatible with ordinary slang1. (It's not impossible, but it's far too much effort.) So, if you want a slang1 that works in UTF-8, you should make a new slang1-wide package. If you want Japanese and UTF-8 support on the same floppy it would be worth investigating whether slang1-wide could be made to work in CJK encodings without too much trouble, as this would avoid wasting space for two versions of the same library. It would also mean there would be a united effort in making slang1 work in arbitrary encodings which would probably contribute to making slang2 happen. I would guess, based on my experience of what happened with Mutt, that not much extra has to be done to make slang1-wide (the patched slang1) support CJK encodings. But CJK speakers would have to help. Edmund
