Re: editor alternatives?
> At Fri, 19 Oct 2001 13:33:19 +0100,
> Jules Bean wrote:
> > These configuration files are all 8-bit files; so an 8-bit editor is
> > what is needed. A 16-bit editor (or UTF) editor might even tempt the
> > user into putting 16-bit characters into a file where they are
> > presumably illegal?
ASCII is only 7 bit, iirc.
On Friday 19 October 2001 15:04, Tomohiro KUBOTA wrote:
> I imagine you are warrying about using UTF-16 or UTF-32 (as known as
> 16bit Unicode or 32bit Unicode). However, these encodings won't be
> supported by Linux because they are not compatible with ASCII and we
> also don't want support of these encodings. Japanese people are
> happy with using EUC-JP, Koreans EUC-KR, mainland Chinese use GB,
> and Big5 is used in Taiwan. All these encodings are compatible with
> ASCII. (In other words, a valid ASCII text is valid in these encodings.)
>
Every valid ASCII (which is from 0x20 to 0x7f) character is also a valid in
UFT-8, UTF-16 or UTF-32. The problem is that many characters that are valid
in extensions for ASCII (extended using bit 7), are only valid for a
particular encodig (like this 'ä' being a small A-umlaut only for ISO-8859-1).
IMHO, the perfect editor for system's config-files should prevent the user
from using everything but plain ASCII (_seven_ bits).
FWIW, my preferred interface for the perfect editor would be that of DOS'
edit, since I still often work with programs that have a similar interface
(everything on MS, KDE, Gnome(?)).
cheers
Uli
Reply to: