Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> But once we introduce other fallbacks, then "utf8 -> latin1" may become
> "UTF-8 -> iso8859-1". A system that knows only "utf8" and "iso8859-1"
> _could_ work if we turned the knobs individually, but won't if we turn
> them both at once. Worse, a system that knows only "UTF-8" and "latin1"
> works now, but would break with your patches.
> I'm not convinced it's worth worrying about, though. The existence of
> such a system is theoretical at this point. I'm not even sure how common
> the "know about utf8 but not UTF-8" thing is, or if we were merely being
> overly cautious.
Yeah, I did consider having to try the permutations until it works,
but suspecting that somebody takes "utf8" without taking "UTF-8" is
to pretty much invalidate the basic premise of the existing code,
i.e. spelling it as "UTF-8" is the most likely to work anywhere as
long as UTF-8 is supported, so I stopped worrying about it at that
I'd actually welcome a more generic suggestions we can put in our
documentation so that we can _lose_ the fallback entirely (e.g. "if
your contributor spelled 'utf8' and your system, which does take
'UTF-8', does not like it, then here is what you can do to your