>>>
>>>
> Has this been reported before? If not why? This is really important. I don't
> think we can wait until Monticello is replaced by something different that
> will fix this :)
the anwser is:
- check bug entries
- add new one if necessary
- propose a fix if possible
- else wait.
>
> There are a few things here that work together in 98% of all cases. I didn't
> get it fully what is going on but
>
> ZipArchiveMember>>contentStream does
> ...
> s := MultiByteBinaryOrTextStream on: (String new: self uncompressedSize).
> s converter: Latin1TextConverter new.
> ...
>
> and
>
> MultiByteBinaryOrTextStream>>defaultConverter
> ^ Latin1TextConverter new.
>
> These two are being used when a monticello package is being read. So we have
> an assumption about an encoding here. On the other hand something in the
> system does something similar. I don't know InputEvents and how to debug them
> but if I create a method
>
> EncTest>>encTest
> ^ 'ö'
>
> I can see that
>
> ((EncTest>>#encTest literalAt: 1) at: 1) asciiValue
>
> is 246 which is something that matches latin1 to some extent.
>
> This way there is a conversion (I think at the time I press on my keyboard)
> to latin1. While writing a monticello package I didn't find any conversion so
> this might be the reason that the files become latin1 on disk and can be read
> back using an explicit conversion from latin1.
>
> But this does not explain how it does work with WideString. I would need to
> dig deeper but maybe someone of you have an idea.
>
> To estimate the possibility to change this I think we should fix this. I
> scanned all of my cached monticello packages. Most of them are 7bit clean.
how do you do that?
> No problem for them if we change encoding. Besides XML Parser I didn't find
> any that contain WideString so no problem here. Some of them are latin1
> encoded (like Seaside 2.8 or Seaside-InternetExplorer from 3.0). That is the
> biggest problem because there is no fallback and monticello does not have a
> version number on file format, right?
> I think it is still feasible to change this in monticello as the fix for
> users of older images will be probably only a few lines that you can apply to
> any version of monticello if I'm not wrong. But the change is not that easy.
This is not clear to me what is the problem and potential solution. I was not
concentrated enough on pharo :(
>
> Norbert
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
