Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
> On 05/11/2007 09:25 AM, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
> > 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
> 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.
Come on, take some "Scheissegalpillen" and stop beeing stubborn ;-)
I aggree that UTF-8 isn't exactly delightful but from a user's point
of view the hassle with UTF-8 is less than the hassle having to deal
with multiple encodings. I mean even when ignoring languages other
than German you have trouble with the stupid euro sign when using
iso8859-*. Look at the bright side of UTF-8, at most places you
don't really have to care about the actual characters so you don't
need special treatment. After all it could be worse. If the new
standard would be a fixed width multibyte encoding with embedded
null bytes you'd have to really rewrite all your code.
(o_ Ludwig Nussel
//\ SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg)
vdr mailing list