>But we aren't. I am saying UTF-8 is the native internal character >set. What happens at the boundaries becomes everyone else's problem. >And after all the grief in this discussion over the last five+ years, >don't you think it should be someone else's problem?
Yeah, this is the part I don't understand. Let's say UTF-8 becomes the native internal character set. What is the gain? I'm perfectly willing to say I am missing something here. AFAIK, it doesn't help _input_; we still have to convert upon reading a message (even if we store messages in UTF-8, we still have to convert the first time we get them). It doesn't help _output_; we still need to convert to the user's native character set. While I understand why programs editors and terminals have a native internal character set, we don't really need to process individual characters like they do. We mostly treat the string data as opaque blobs except for a few circumstances, and those are relatively straightforward to handle. So, I'm really trying hard to see the gain here. Where we tend to run into problems is the boundary between nmh and the user; I don't see how using UTF-8 internally fixes it. --Ken _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
