Re: editor alternatives?
Hi,
At Sat, 20 Oct 2001 13:25:22 +0200,
Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
> 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).
UTF-16 and UTF-32 includes ASCII characters in the viewpoint of
_character set_, but they are not compatible to ASCII in the
viewpoint of _encoding_. UTF-8 is compatible.
> IMHO, the perfect editor for system's config-files should prevent the user
> from using everything but plain ASCII (_seven_ bits).
Interesting idea. I like the idea but I am not so radical to try to
realize it. I imagine many novice 8bit-language people would complain.
(Of course, _they_ are wrong and the editor is right.)
One point is that "preferred editor" (by EDITOR variable) may be used
for editing texts for human reading. If your editor for your MUA is
7bit, you would be unhappy, which is just like I woul be unhappy if
the editor doesn't support multibyte languages.
> 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(?)).
If we stick to support of i18n encodings, we will not have many
choices for user interface. However, I do stick to i18n.
---
Tomohiro KUBOTA <kubota@debian.org>
http://www.debian.or.jp/~kubota/
"Introduction to I18N" http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/intro-i18n/
Reply to: