On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 18:03, John Goerzen wrote: > Colin was advocating what amounted to exactly that. He was advocating > removing all support for non-UTF8 terminals.
Um, woah there. The key word is *eventually*. Again: the only "must" my present policy proposal introduces is for filenames included *directly* in Debian packages, or created by maintainer scripts. Everything else is just a "should" or less, for now. Could you reread my policy proposal again, please? > I don't buy that at all. Lots of programs are simply pipes, working with > data going in, echoing it back out. > > Colin asserted that ls was broken because it doesn't handle Unicode. Broken? Not necessarily. But suboptimal? I think so. > I > submit that ls has always handled Unicode; if the filename is encoded with > Unicode and your terminal is Unicode, it will show it in Unicode. It > doesn't have to be made specifically aware to just shlep some data onto the > screen. True enough. But we could make the transition easier and increase compatibility with legacy setups by making 'ls' and friends recode output. > > We can support non-UTF-8 terminals - as Radovan pointed out, the tool > > Then let's do that, and not consign the rest of the world to the junk bin. I fully, completely agree.
