On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 09:31:26PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 04:21:33PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > What do you lose here? Those who have fonts that can display the > > character in question will be able to do so; those who don't won't, but > > will see some reasonably obvious indicator like a "?" or a filled-in > > square to show that the character is one they can't display. This is > > superior to the situation where those who don't have such fonts just see > > some gibberish.
> Superior? No way, it's just as bad. Whether the noise is gibberish, or > whether it consist of question marks or cute little squares doesn't make > any difference at all. Except that UTF8 is non-destructive when interpreted as any other character set. The same cannot be said of many other character sets: trying to display some Western charsets on some CJK terminals can cause codepage shifts that corrupt the display of the remainder of the text, IIRC. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgpFTIcsa8Wav.pgp
Description: PGP signature
