Guido Berhoerster <[email protected]> writes: > I still wonder why you're substituting \u escapes with unicode > characters at all, as that potentially allows unescaped control > sequences which make the .po file quite fragile?
I agree that interpreting \u escapes might cause confusing output for Unicode control characters, but I don't think it is totally unuseful. I can think of at least a couple of benefits of the current behavior: 1. translators are provided with decoded (human-readable) strings 2. strings escaped in different escaping schemes (e.g. \U in Python) can be unified Perhaps an idea might be to introduce gettext-specific Unicode escaping scheme (which may only escape control characters) and add an option to xgettext to use it. Regards, -- Daiki Ueno
