On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 03:52:09AM +0200, Daniel Egger <degger@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> The IEs had troubles until somewhen (haven't checked for quite some
Are you sure? In my experience all of these problems stem from improper or
missing charset declarations.
> time). Also the smaller homegrown browsers did, probably also the old
> GIMP helpbrowser.
That might be true for some of them, but certainly isn't a major problem.
> and we don't really need it at the moment, it's causing more troubles
> than benefits. So I'd rather hold off with generating UTF-8 output for
Well, there is currently no big problem with using e.g. latin1, so why not
use it. The same is true for any japanese translations (if any emerge :):
native encodings work fine mos of the time.
> Since the charset is choosable on a file-by-file base anyways I don't
> see any problem using this feature for languages that need it. :)
The only problem is unwanted conversion (consider editors replacing tabs
by changes and vice versa. That is a well-known problem that comes bakc in
the form of automatic conversion by some editors).
So a policy of "use utf-8 for input" (as a goal!) makes sense, even when
one can deviate from it on a per-file basis.
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@xxxxxxxx |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
