Re: Accepted po-debconf 0.2.2 (all source)
On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 10:01:32PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> barbier@linuxfr.org (Denis Barbier) immo vero scripsit:
>
> > > Making the templates file utf-8 itself does not help solve the main problem,
> > > much.
> >
> > Agreed, that's why adding an Encoding-xx: header field in all templates fits
> > our needs without breakage.
>
> I think it doesn't.
>
> Description-XX_XX.XXX: is a better way to put it.
>
> I gather that older debconf don't understand the Encoding-xx: header.
> We want new Description-whatever to not to go in the way of older
> debconf.
Please explain why breaking compatibility is a plus.
An alternative is:
* Put encoding in a special field, not processed by older debconf.
* For sarge, only accept legacy encodings.
Then templates can be processed without trouble by older debconf and are
ready for future run-time conversion.
The only `benefit' of the Description-ll_LL.encoding scheme is that
translated strings for a given language can appear with different
encodings, but again I can hardly see why this is a good thing.
Denis
Reply to: