On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 03:23:27PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 01:09:02PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > > tags 207455 pending > > thanks > > > > In my current packages.d.o version, all Description: fields are > > handled as utf-8 (ddtp uses it and IMHO english descriptions should be > > ascii). > > > > Objections welcome. > > I suppose you don't have the existing broken Latin1-using descriptions > (if there are still any, there were some) break even further, do you?
[btw: sorry for my absence for at least the last week. But RL needed my attention :)] Hmm. I have a few possible strategies to handle descriptions (English ones, the one from DDTP are all UTF-8): 1. Take them literaly and specify a charset=ascii for the page 2. Dito, but charset=iso-8859-1 3. Dito, but charset=utf-8 4. Use one of the three charsets but make a list of broken descriptions that have to be converted Currently we do (2) but I would prefer to go to (3). As long as policy doesn't mandate one encoding for the description it's our decision anyway and I would prefer to give everyone the same chance to break something ;) Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www: http://www.djpig.de/
