On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:56:33AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 11:08:52PM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote: > > Well, either you were lucky, or you use good and well configurated mail > > tools. But if my language did need a funky encoding, I would not let my work > > depend of such conditions. Don't get me wrong. I mean that in such > > condition, uuencoding prevents the DD from shouting himself in the foot, and > > I've the feeling that it helps anyone, including the developer. > As a data point all the translations I've been sent since I can remember > (certainly since I converted my packages to use po-debconf) have arrived > as MIME attachments to bugs. If there are any problems with their > encoding they certainly haven't been reported to me. If this is a > problem it doesn't seem to be bothering many people. > I'd certainly much rather get translations as MIME attachments since > MIME is actually supported by mail tools and I'm not convinced there is > actually a problem with it. I have had the experience in the past where my MUA (mutt) running in UTF-8 mode would *autoconvert* plaintext MIME attachments when saving them, such that an attachment received in ISO8859-1 would be saved to disk as UTF-8. Given that the .po files contain embedded information about the document's encoding, this doesn't work all that well. The translator in question has taken to gzipping his translations when sending them, which seems a reasonable workaround until the whole world is running UTF8. :) -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpQVA_GrkyLR.pgp
Description: PGP signature