On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 01:01:31PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Why can't we just use UTF-8? There is even (my) pending policy proposal
> > for this #99933, and consensus was that it should be accepted, there are
> > just few (pseudo)issues holding it back.
>
> I've read #99933 and #143941, and I see very little that's relevant.
I had only the charset in mind, of course.
> What are these (pseudo)issues?
Citing Manoj Srivastava:
Hmm. Seems like we want to support utf-8 for the future,
though perhaps that can wait until we get tool support for
that. dpkg-query should start supporting it soon. I guess we
should shelve this until we have better support from the tool
chain. (we do not have consensus, in any case)
well, the sentence about dpkg-query was misinformed, since
it handles utf-8 fine, Manoj was confused by dpkg-query's
author promising to add character conversion.
Otherwise, all dpkg related tools I can think of were working
with utf-8 well, now the appearance of new perl messed up things
a bit and there are bugs to be hunted. Nothing catastrophic in any
case, and once my new e-mail is sorted out, I am going to start
using diacritics in my name for Maintainer: field. In UTF-8,
of course.
Now that RedHat drastically switched itself into UTF-8, we may
expect much better upstream support for UTF-8 from different tools.
It is sad to be just following RH's way instead of leading it
ourselves, but well, that's the life :-)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Radovan Garabík 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!
