Re: Release notes recent (and planned) changes
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:18:28PM +0200, Eddy Petrișor wrote:
> Jens Seidel wrote:
> > Committed. Why did you removed the version check header? I readded it
> > and assumed the file corresponds to revision 1.155.
>
> Probably was lost in the mean time...
> About the assumption, I think it would have been wise to assume
> 1.119 since is more closer to that and I am working now to bring it
> closer to 1.155
Ah, OK. I suggest to wait for your next update to fix this.
> > The old file seems to be based on a PO file. If you still work with a PO
> > file I suggest to commit it as well.
>
> No I don't work based on a po file, although I think it might be
> useful...
I think Dan Damian worked with PO. But since it was not committed it is
now lost ...
> I have a problem with the encoding, I am confused about what it
> should be? iso-8859-2, utf-8? IIRC it was iso8859-2, but at some
> point I think I heard something about UTF-8 being usable...
Please restrict to iso-8859-2 for now. UTF-8 works for a few languages
only at the moment and not at all on the build host.
> Also, trying to save as 8859-2 and reopening with vimdiff makes vim
> think the file is iso8859-1, which is broken, of course.
>
> Setting the encoding from vim doesn't work (I've seen somebody else
> complain), but I managed to force it for SGML files in my .vimrc .
I complained :-) Try ":e ++enc=latin2".
> Still, the glyphs do not appear correctly since I have ro_RO.UTF-8
> as encoding... exporting LANG=ro_RO (which has 8859-2 and is a
> generated locale), forcing the encoding leads to the diacritics to a
> vim which doesn't display diacritics (gnome-terminal)
>
> Fortunately in urxvt it works...
It depends on the terminal? Strange. I use xterm and it seems to work
there too (I think).
Jens
Reply to: