On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 15:10, John Goerzen wrote: > Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 13:50, John Goerzen wrote: > > > > Sorry, we have to start somewhere. Unicode is the way of the future, > > and if we wait until every vendor of some random terminal updates it > > with support for UTF-8, we will never start. > > I don't disagree that we should move to Unicode. I disagree that such > a move must inherently remove support for legacy (or even, the > majority of CURRENT) terminals.
Not inherently, but stuff will likely break. How much it breaks is inversely proportial to how much work we put into it. > Sorry, this discussion is about what we're doing, isn't it? I don't > recall seing "Colin Walters, Debian Dictator for Life" voted on > anywhere. Ah, you must have missed the rider in the small font in my last policy proposal :) Seriously, I didn't mean it that way; I just meant that I think everyone has generally accepted that UTF-8 is the way of the future; we're just debating when, where, and how. > What "change programs?" That's what they do now. I don't think most do. dpkg for example doesn't. 'ls' for example doesn't. > Yet your own proposal breaks compatibility with, let's see, EVERYONE? No, for people using UTF-8 today, like me, it increases compatibility :) And remember, (not to sound like a broken record, but) lots of upstream software is moving to UTF-8. Compatibility with systems using legacy charsets is already broken to some extent.
