Am Sat, 6 Sep 2014 17:51:23 +0300 schrieb ketmar via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]>:
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 16:38:50 +0200 > Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yes, but why do you prefer garbled symbols incorrectly mapped > > to your native encoding or even invalid characters silently > > removed ? > i prefer to not read the text i cannot understand. there is zero > information in Chinese, or Thai, or even Spanish for me. those texts > looks (for me) like gibberish anyway. so i don't care if they are > displayed correctly or not. that's why i using one-byte encoding and > happy with it. > > > Do you understand that with the symbols displayed as code > > points you still have all the information even if it doesn't > > look readable immediately ? > no, i don't understand this. for me Chinese glyph and abstract painting > is the same. and simple box, for that matter. > > > It offers you new options: > only one: trying to paste URL to google translate and then trying to > make sense from GT output. and i don't care what encoding was used for > page in this case. So because you see no use for Unicode (which is hard to believe considering all the places where localized strings may be used), everyone has to keep supporting hacks to guess text encodings or NFC normalize and convert strings to the system locale that go to the terminal. Thanks for the extra work :p -- Marco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
