Markus Neteler wrote: > > Martin Landa wrote: > >> Robert Szczepanek wrote: > >> > I am newbie in translations and my question probably is simple one. > >> > Which *.po files coding standard is recommended now? > >> > UTF or ISO? > >> > I continue polish translation (i.e. UTF-8 and ISO-8859-2). > >> > >> I guess ISO(?) > > > > I think so. If your system supports UTF-8, it will support converting > > ISO-8859-2 to UTF-8. OTOH, if your system has negligible I18N support, > > you'll have problems if the files are in UTF-8. > > > > Also, using ISO-8859-* encodings helps to discourage people from > > gratuitous use of features such as "enhanced" punctuation. > > Now, in 2010, is this still valid?
It will probably valid for a long time to come. Any system which supports UTF-8 will also support ISO-8859-*, but the converse isn't necessarily true. The extent to which UTF-8 is less compatible than the locale-specific encoding will decrease over time, but it's unlikely to reach parity in the foreseeable future. > It seems that UTF-8 reached most systems. > Also the poEdit software converts to UTF-8 while saving which > I have to convert back with iconv to ISO-8859-15 (I tried DE). If you feel that you need to use UTF-8, at least ensure that the file doesn't use any characters outside of the appropriate repertoire, so that the file can be converted back to ISO-8859-* (etc) by the user if necessary. -- Glynn Clements <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
