Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
> On 05/11/2007 09:25 AM, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
>> Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
>>> On 05/10/07 20:04, Udo Richter wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> VDR development would speed up, if Klaus would delegate more work to
>>>> other talented coders, and doing more review instead of coding most of
>>>> it himself.
>>> Well, right now I'm dealing with the UTF-8 stuff, which is something
>>> I myself don't need at all. But unfortunately the patch(es) for this
>>> can't just be applied as it, because from what I've seen so far there
>>> it is assumed that the whole program is totally going UTF-8 - which it
>>> is *not*. I still want to be able to run it on a pure and clean iso8859-1
>>> system. So I have to painstakingly go through the whole thing and take care
>>> that it only does UTF-8 if so requested - and that's a lot more work than 
>>> just
>>> applying a patch...
>> What's wrong with vdr using UTF-8 internally if it makes the code simpler?
>> Offhand I could only imagine two places where using a different external
>> encoding would be required and that's file names and tty i/o. Stuff like
>> epg.data and svdrp should better use UTF-8 as you don't need to add extra 
>> meta
>> data options to specify the encoding.
> It's very simple: I don't like it!
> The two languages I can handle can be perfectly well represented with 
> iso8859-1,
> so I just don't want to have to go through all the hassle with UTF-8.
> To me, a character is a character is a byte is a byte. Period.
> Now, I do see that there are people out there who can't represent their
> language with single byte character sets, or want to be able to handle
> more languages than a single character set can cope with, so I am going
> to make VDR able to handle UTF-8. But only in a way that allows (at least)
> me to completely turn this stuff off. Whenever I install a new version

Isn't that constraint going to add too much unnecessary overhead to the
code? I guess you'd be then forced to take care of handling both
requirements forever, with every future version. Is that really what you
want, only to satisfy the "I don't like it" reason? I mean, you're
already doing a compromise at least, and a lot of us salute this, I'm
only wondering if it wouldn't actually make your life easier if
supporting just one of 2 things you want to support anyway, the
complicated one, UTF-8, and the hassle-free one, non-utf-8. Since you're
willing to support UTF-8, the other one is in my opinion, just extra
work from now on, slowing down development (God beware, I'm not tryin'
to push you)...

> of SUSE Linux, the first this I always do is turn off UTF-8. I just don't
> want it and don't need it.
> Klaus

vdr mailing list

Reply via email to