Hi,
At 29 Jun 2001 23:29:34 +0200,
Juliusz Chroboczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've already said that, but I really don't understand why you insist
> on discussing these issues now, rather than waiting either until I've
> written a rock-solid version of luit, or else decided such a task is
> beyond my abilities.
Don't you like to read some proposal or implovement idea for your "luit"?
Anyway, you asked "why now". I explain.
When you started development of "luit", a locale-sensibility patch
for XTerm (by Robert Brady and I) was already available. Thus, it
is clear that you think your "luit" approach is better than
nl_langinfo()-iconv() approach of the patch. When you announced
development of "luit", nobody (other than me) asked why you develop
it even though we already have locale-sensibility patch. I thought
that this implies that members of [EMAIL PROTECTED] and this list
thought "luit"-approach is better. One of the reasons was that
"luit" is better in portability.
However, recently, Markus said
>> http://clisp.cons.org/~haible/packages-libcharset.html
> Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for! May be, xterm and less
> should use that as well ...
Though the Robert's patch already used it. Thus, I thought Markus
underestimates the portability of Robert's patch by not knowing
libcharset.
Thus, now, one reason against Robert's patch disappeared. Why not
discuss now?
> rather than waiting either until I've
> written a rock-solid version of luit,
I never criticized the basic idea of "luit" because of lacking
functionality. Yes, I demanded Big5 and Shift_JIS support.
However, demand is not a criticism.
However, I asked the basic idea of "luit". I understand the
basic "condom" idea and it makes sense. However, I will not
agree if "condom" means "user has to invoke it (from ~/.profile)
or needs any other labor". Ok, you said that we should discuss
on this point _later_. (I also remember you suggested a tentative
idea to have an X resource to determine whether to invoke "luit").
However, since this point is the main focus for me, I feel I
want to criticise "luit" if it has any possibility for users
to invoke it explicitly (from ~/.profile). I am not saying
about _your_ opinion.
(Thus, I feel "luit" is a seed for another flamewar.
I generally feel that people here thinks non-UTF-8 locales
should not be convenient and this is the way to hustle
people into migrating into UTF-8 locales.)
> or else decided such a task is
> beyond my abilities.
Ah, I didn't think about this possibility. I guess you mean
you might be bothered by many encodings such as EUC-TW,
Shift_JIS, GB18030, and so on. Then how about using iconv()
for "luit"? Portability problem? Then try libiconv.
---
Tomohiro KUBOTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.debian.or.jp/~kubota/
"Introduction to I18N" http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/intro-i18n/
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
