On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 04:09:25PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > However, the flipside of this is if a program has an xml config file > that the user is expected to edit manually in a text editor and the > program will adapt to multiple encodings (for instance, by using libxml2 > to parse the file[1]_) having it exist in utf-8 is much better than > having it exist in SOME_EXOTIC_ENCODING. In this case it's the program I disagree. It is not an obvious choice and should be left to the maintainer. It depends on the user target of the software, for instance. > not upstream agrees. In the case of documentation that does specify the > encoding I lean towards converting [2]_. In the case of a file that is > used by a program we should definitely have a conversation with upstream > about it, although we could convert locally with upstream's blessing > (ie: Upstream says: "I'm going to continue writing my xml config file in > latin-1. If you want to convert them to utf-8 for your users that's > fine -- I'm going to continue to use a library for xml parsing that > understands encodings.") Once again, better leave it to the maintainer. This doesn't prevent from issuing recommendations, though. -- Pat -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
