[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: And now for something completely different... etch!

On Jun 08, Roger Leigh <rleigh@whinlatter.ukfsn.org> wrote:

> >> > Wrong. The problem is packages which need to interact with text files,
> >> > mail and usenet messages generated by broken software, and for which
> >> > assuming UTF-8 would be totally wrong.
> >> This is completely orthogonal to making UTF-8 the default locale
> >> codeset.
> > No, it's not because most applications do not allow setting a different
> > "default charset".
> Please could you re-read what I wrote?  What you are saying does not
> follow from that.
> By default locale charset, I'm referring to the defaults in the
> locales package, which are used to generate /etc/locale.gen.  If you
I'm not. I'm referring to the charset which is used by applications to
interpret unlabeled text streams.

> GNU/Linux has been slowly moving to UCS since the late '90s.  We are
> now well past the point where it's mostly usable and ready for proper
> use.  Debian is well behind the times here.
UTF-8 support is good. A default may be good for some locales and wrong
for others.

> As something to ponder: with all current gcc's in Debian, UTF-8 and
> UCS-4 are used as the internal narrow and wide string literal encoding
> in all binaries, independent of the C source encoding.  See
I can't see why this would be relevant. I'm not arguing about the merits
of Unicode.

> > Unsurprisingly, looks you live in a country where anything else than
> > US-ASCII was rarely used in the past.
> ISO-8859-1 actually.  But this is not really topical.
It is, it explains why you do not understand the issue.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: