[Dear developers! This is my conversation with Eike regarding an encoding used
for the translation files in OOo. I'm advocating the use of 8-bit native
charsets, while Eike insists on using UTF-8 for all. Eike suggested, I take
this to your list.]
> > So, the same for computers, but harder for people. Sounds like my way is
> > better. UTF-8 only makes sense, when charsets need to be mixed -- not in
> > this case.
> Changing encodings would also make use of ref="..." references harder,
> one would always have to check that encodings match, and changing
> encoding of one file might affect others, which is not a desirable
> situation.
Sorry, I don't understand this. Can you explain?
> > The uniformity here is hardly advantageous -- these files are, by their
> > very nature, maintained by different people,
>
> which in itself, viewed in context of ref="..." uses, almost forbids any
> other encoding than UTF-8
Why? Western Europeans will use iso8859-1, Eastern -- some KOI8 derivative,
etc. They will almost never need to cooperate -- within one file -- only
software may have to mix their work, and we already established, that
software does not really care.
> Installation of the GNU recode package should be always possible, even
> on the oldest machine.
Everything is possible, of course. I maintain, that gratuitious use of UTF is
inelegant -- if the file format allows to stick to 8-bit encodings, using a
multibyte one is wrong.
If I can not `vi' it, it ain't a text-file :-)
-mi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
