On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:37:18 +0200 Peter Rosin <p...@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
> Den 2009-06-29 11:16 skrev Pierre Ossman: > > IMO it's better to have a strong "must" as all strings really need to > > have a defined encoding, but keep the historical note to warn against > > the horrible situation we're in with the current implementations. > > And I think "should" is also too strong. It should say that the > encoding *is* unspecified and that everybody "must" treat strings > with care because of this, and then go on to "strongly recommend" > everybody to use UTF-8 (as that's the only sane choice) or limit > themselves to ASCII if they are willing to trade usability for > portability. IMHO of course. > And here I though that this was what I was saying with my text. :) Do you have a preferred wording? Rgds -- Pierre Ossman OpenSource-based Thin Client Technology System Developer Telephone: +46-13-21 46 00 Cendio AB Web: http://www.cendio.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ tigervnc-rfbproto mailing list tigervnc-rfbproto@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tigervnc-rfbproto
