Re: Editor Priorities
At 08 May 2002 21:57:27 -0500,
Jeff Licquia wrote:
> 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.
Yes, I have proposed LANG setting sensibility (strictly speaking,
LC_CTYPE locale sensibility).
> 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.
Right. However, I proposed CJK/bidi/Indic/combining besides LC_CTYPE
sensibility because some of LC_CTYPE-sensible softwares don't support
CJK/bidi/Indic/combining. For example, it is very likely
LANG=en_US foobareditor OK
LANG=fr_FR@euro foobareditor OK
LANG=ja_JP.eucJP foobareditor NG
Thus I suggested to add CJK bidi/Indic/combining.
> 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.
I agree that UTF-8 is a great hope for *future*. However, CJK/bidi/Indic/
combining is sereous need for *now*; softwares without these supports
are just like what European people feel about non-8bit-clean softwares.
Tomohiro KUBOTA <firstname.lastname@example.org>
"Introduction to I18N" http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/intro-i18n/
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org