Re: Bug#99933: second attempt at more comprehensive unicode policy
Colin Walters <walters@debian.org> writes:
> On Fri, 2003-01-17 at 17:49, Manoj Srivastava wrote:>
>> perhaps we should stick to pure ascii file names, if we
>> must have policy take a stance about file names at all?
>
> First of all, I strongly believe policy should have a stance about file
> names. People will want to have packages including filenames with
> include non-ASCII characters. There are something like 15-20 in Debian
> now, and that number is probably small because of this encoding mess.
> And if those packages want to, we need a defined encoding for doing so.
> I think it is pretty obvious that UTF-8 is the only sane choice.
Actually, if we must take a stance, I would say that while
unicode does remain the only sane choice in the future, at this
point the only sane choice is pure ascii; for reasons that have come
up often in this thread.
manoj
--
When you say that you agree to a thing in principle, you mean that you
have not the slightest intention of carrying it out in practice. Otto
Von Bismarck
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: