Re: Editor Priorities
On Wed, 2002-05-08 at 21:49, Tomohiro KUBOTA wrote:
> At Wed, 8 May 2002 21:07:32 -0500,
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > For once, I believe the need for multibyte support has been overstated.
> > The tasks for which it is *most* important to provide a sane default
> > editor -- such as editing per-user or system config files, most of which
> > are in ASCII and commented in English by default -- don't require a
> > Unicode-enabled or bidi-capable editor. And, those tasks where users
> > are most likely to need/want international input are those areas where
> > the user is most likely to be using a custom editor setting ($EDITOR,
> > $VISUAL, or calling the editor by name).
> It means that Debian will force *all* CJK (bidi, Indic) people
> to reconfigure their system to use CJK (bidi, Indic)-capable
If the priority system is allowed to take runtime factors into account,
then I would propose that editors that can directly support the user's
LANG setting be given a +20 or so.
Of course, this would have no effect for English users (since just about
all editors support ASCII), but would grant the proper preference for
CJK, bidi, etc.
I might also give more of a preference to UTF8-capable editors, since
that's supposed to be the Great Hope for many i18n/l10n issues in the
future. There's nothing like encouraging good behavior now.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com