* Michael Everson
|
| I think it's clear that Unicode should give some advice as to how to
| announce encoding options in a useful way to the end user. For the
| two encodings we are discussing, may I suggest the following
| standard menu items:
|
| Unicode (Raw, UTF-16)
| Unicode (Web, UTF-8)
David Starner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 08:12:08PM +0100, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> > OK, UTF-8 is my favorite default UTF too. However, whatever
> the default is,
> > it is easier to just call it "Unicode", and call the other
> options "Unicode
> > (something else)".
> >
> > That puts on
At 14:28 -0600 2002-02-12, David Starner wrote:
>
>What happens when a user is told to save in UTF-16? What about when two
>users running different operating systems try to pass files about? And
>why would Unicode be any clearer to a naive user than UTF-16?
>
>IMO, UTF-16 is as clear as Unicode, a
* Marco Cimarosti
|
| Only if the user selects a menu like "Manual encoding settings", she
| should be presented with a choice like "International (Unicode)",
| that opposes to "Western (ISO 8859-1)", "Chinese, simplified (GB
| 2312-80)", and so on. All entries should have a generic descriptive
> A ideal interface should probably automatically and silently select
> Unicode
> (and its default UTF) whenever one or more of the characters in a document
> are not representable in the local encoding.
I beg to differ. Silently doing such an unexpected change is guaranteed to
confuse the user,
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 08:12:08PM +0100, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> OK, UTF-8 is my favorite default UTF too. However, whatever the default is,
> it is easier to just call it "Unicode", and call the other options "Unicode
> (something else)".
>
> That puts one less acronym in front of the "naive"
David Starner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 11:22:01AM +0100, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> > At best, the localization could use a label such as
> "Unicode (UTF-8)" to
> > enforce the concept that UTF-8 is Unicode as well. But it
> could hardly use
> > "Unicode (UTF-16BE)" for the *default* UTF,
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 11:22:01AM +0100, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> At best, the localization could use a label such as "Unicode (UTF-8)" to
> enforce the concept that UTF-8 is Unicode as well. But it could hardly use
> "Unicode (UTF-16BE)" for the *default* UTF, because the user would ask
> "Where
>As a poor software maker, I suppose I ought to defend other software
>makers. >EVERYONE KNOWS that Unicode and UTF-16 are the same thing. It is,
>>unfortunately, irrelevant that in this case (as in so many others) "what
>>everyone knows" happens to be untrue. We exist to conform to the user's
>>e
Martin Kochanski wrote:
> >From: Tom Gewecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
> > I constantly run into browser, mail, and text editing software
> > with encoding menus that list, as two separate items, Unicode
> > and UTF-8, as if Unicode and UTF-16 were identical and as if
> > UTF-8 were not Unicode.
As a poor software maker, I suppose I ought to defend other software makers. EVERYONE
KNOWS that Unicode and UTF-16 are the same thing. It is, unfortunately, irrelevant
that in this case (as in so many others) "what everyone knows" happens to be untrue.
We exist to conform to the user's expecta
11 matches
Mail list logo
