Re: Accepted po-debconf 0.2.2 (all source)
Hi,
At Mon, 16 Sep 2002 22:04:13 +0900,
Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > This does not immediately mean that I insist that UTF-8 should be used
> > for storing Debconf translations. I just said usage of UTF-8 does not
> > bring any problems.
>
> It does cause a problem.
>
> Description-XX: fields used to be whatever encoding they were,
> and with sarge, some of them appear in UTF-8.
> That is my main concern, and why I think Encoding-XX: field
> isn't the best way to go.
Ah, you are right. Debconf must have some method to distinguish
what encoding is used for stored translations in run-time. And,
the method must co-exist with the current situation of debconf.
Though I don't know any examples of Description-XX: fields written
in UTF-8, such implementation MUST be avoided until we determine
how to handle encodings in debconf. Until that, WE CANNOT USE
DEBCONF IN NON-POPULAR ENCODINGS (SUCH AS UTF-8), even if users
want it.
However, I don't know whether the method of Encoding-XX: field
is bad or not.
---
Tomohiro KUBOTA <kubota@debian.org>
http://www.debian.or.jp/~kubota/
"Introduction to I18N" http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/intro-i18n/
Reply to: