On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 13:12, Radovan Garabik wrote: > see #99933. It has been seconded and generally accepted at the time, > but policy freeze caused it did not get into policy then.
Hmm, I searched the policy bug list, I don't know how I missed those. Probably my fault for using galeon-snapshot and expecting its search function to work :) #99324 isn't really a proposal, just a discussion. #99933 goes a lot farther than #174982. First of all, we can't even suggest that people use UTF-8 in package control fields until all our tools support it. Right now it is just plain broken to put anything but ASCII in them. I also personally don't like how it recommends using a "well-established encoding" or UTF-8. I mean, that's basically saying nothing. It doesn't help applications at all, which will still be forced to guess what encoding files are in. In short, it doesn't improve the situation at all. I think policy should be silent on the encoding for most files, until we can usefully say it will just be UTF-8. Perhaps though policy could *suggest* UTF-8, and mention that it is the preferred encoding. I do like the HTML META tag suggestion, although in the case of XHTML, it should be fine to use the charset parameter of the XML processing instruction, like in <?xml version="1.0" charset="UTF-8"?>. > Perhaps it is time now to accept it, since people keep > reinventing the proposal from time to time (this is the third > one I see) Yes, I think the time is getting closer. But I wanted my proposal to be small and simple, just a way for Unicode to get a foothold in policy, which we can expand later.
