On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 02:12:37AM +0300, Adi Stav wrote: > On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 10:20:38PM +0200, Radovan Garabik wrote: > ...snip... > > > > *Addition to 13.3 Additional documentation: > > > > Documentation of debian packages in text format, if written in language > > requiring characters outside of 7-bit ASCII range, should use either > > well-established encoding for the given language (such as ISO-8859-2 for > > some central- and easter europe languages, KOI8-R for Russian etc...), > > or UTF-8 encoding. Maintainers are being encouraged to use UTF-8, > > having in mind the general debian migration toward unified character > > encoding. > > > > Original upstream documentation, if in encoding other than UTF-8 or > > the well-established encoding for the particular language, should be > > converted either to UTF-8 or to the well-established encoding. > > Choice between UTF-8 and other encoding is left to the maintainer > > discretion, however, one package should have all the documentation > > in one consistent encoding. > ...snip... > > But what if the package contains short documentation in several languages > with incompatible encodings? Does the proposal mean to say they are > allowed to have different encodings or must they use UTF8 in this case? >
I have not thought about this eventuality... but, this proposal unambiguously leads to the conclusion that the documentation _should_ be converted to utf-8. (notice the "should", not "must" in this paragraphs) -- ----------------------------------------------------------- | Radovan Garabik http://melkor.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk/~garabik/ | | __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ melkor.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk | ----------------------------------------------------------- Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus. Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!
