On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 03:52:09AM +0200, Daniel Egger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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      +--
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       [EMAIL PROTECTED]      |e|
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\       XX11-RIPE         --+
    The choice of a GNU generation                       |
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to