On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 01:38:57AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 12:37:50AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 09:48:34PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 08:11:38PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 7 2007 17:06, Russell King wrote:
> > > > >On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 12:29:05AM +0800, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >$ git log | head -n 1000 | tail -n 200 > o
> > > > >$ file -i o
> > > > >o: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > > > >$ git log | head -n 1000 | tail -n 300 > o
> > > > >$ file -i o
> > > > >o: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > > > >$ git log | head -n 1000 | tail -n 400 > o
> > > > >$ file -i o
> > > > >o: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> > > >
> > > > I am inclined to say that "file" does not count, because it tries to
> > > > guess an
> > > > ambiguous mapping from bytes to character set. Even more, file should be
> > > > _unable at all_ to distinguish an iso-8859-1 from an iso-8859-2 (or
> > > > worse: 15)
> > > > file. This program is soo... forget it, it's not an argument. It works
> > > > well for
> > > > headerful files, but text files don't really contain one. The next best
> > > > thing
> > > > would be html, with a proper <meta http-equiv=Content> tag.
> > >
> > > The stupidity from the start up with those character sets is that they
> > > consider that a whole file is written with a given set. In fact, the
> > > charset should apply to characters themselves. At least, the
> > > quoted-printable, non-human friendly, encoding was the least stupid.
> >
> > I doubt doing this would really be worth the effort.
> >
> > In the 21st century, people should simply use UTF-8.
> >
> > > Now that UTF8 comes everywhere, everyone receives tons of mangled mails,
> > > and even mailers which correctly support UTF8 and use it by default manage
> > > to shoot themselves in the foot when they reply to, or forward a mail. The
> > > system is completely broken because limited by design, and we have to
> > > learn
> > > to live with this brokenness.
> >
> > Only if MUAs have broken charset support or don't set a correct
> > "charset" header in the mails they are sending.
> >
> > If some software still can't handle UTF-8 correctly more than 10 years
> > after it was introduced, that's not a brokenness you can blame on UTF-8.
>
> I'm not blaming UTF-8 per se, but people who still believe in encoding
> *whole documents*. Copy-paste, text insertion, git output, etc... everything
> has a good reason not to be in the same encoding as what your MUA believes.
How would you do this technically in a way that it's significantely
easier than simply finishing the UTF=8 transition?
> If major MUAs still have problems with UTF-8 10 years after it was introduced,
> it's clearly the proof of a flaw in the initial design. And I'm not even
> discussing the stupidity which requires that you read a whole text to get
> its number of characters !
The only major MUA not supporting UTF-8 is Eudora.
And if you are talking about buggy old pine, in the latest development
version [1] it does not only become open source, it also got some
working Unicode support.
> Willy
cu
Adrian
[1] Alpine
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
