Klaus Schmidinger wrote: > On 05/11/2007 09:25 AM, Ludwig Nussel wrote: > > What's wrong with vdr using UTF-8 internally if it makes the code simpler? > > Offhand I could only imagine two places where using a different external > > encoding would be required and that's file names and tty i/o. Stuff like > > epg.data and svdrp should better use UTF-8 as you don't need to add extra meta > > data options to specify the encoding. > > It's very simple: I don't like it! > The two languages I can handle can be perfectly well represented with iso8859-1, > so I just don't want to have to go through all the hassle with UTF-8. > To me, a character is a character is a byte is a byte. Period. Come on, take some "Scheissegalpillen" and stop beeing stubborn ;-) I aggree that UTF-8 isn't exactly delightful but from a user's point of view the hassle with UTF-8 is less than the hassle having to deal with multiple encodings. I mean even when ignoring languages other than German you have trouble with the stupid euro sign when using iso8859-*. Look at the bright side of UTF-8, at most places you don't really have to care about the actual characters so you don't need special treatment. After all it could be worse. If the new standard would be a fixed width multibyte encoding with embedded null bytes you'd have to really rewrite all your code. cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ SUSE Labs V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) _______________________________________________ vdr mailing list vdr@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
