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

Re: RFC: default encoding of documentation and debian control files

On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 02:12:37AM +0300, Adi Stav wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 10:20:38PM +0200, Radovan Garabik wrote:
> ...snip...
> > 
> > *Addition to 13.3 Additional documentation:
> > 
> > Documentation of debian packages in text format, if written in language
> > requiring characters outside of 7-bit ASCII range, should use either
> > well-established encoding for the given language (such as ISO-8859-2 for
> > some central- and easter europe languages, KOI8-R for Russian etc...),
> > or UTF-8 encoding. Maintainers are being encouraged to use UTF-8,
> > having in mind the general debian migration toward unified character encoding.
> > 
> > Original upstream documentation, if in encoding other than UTF-8 or
> > the well-established encoding for the particular language, should be
> > converted either to UTF-8 or to the well-established encoding.
> > Choice between UTF-8 and other encoding is left to the maintainer
> > discretion, however, one package should have all the documentation
> > in one consistent encoding.
> ...snip...
> But what if the package contains short documentation in several languages 
> with incompatible encodings? Does the proposal mean to say they are 
> allowed to have different encodings or must they use UTF8 in this case?

I have not thought about this eventuality... but, this proposal
unambiguously leads to the conclusion that the documentation
_should_ be converted to utf-8.
(notice the "should", not "must" in this paragraphs)

| Radovan Garabik http://melkor.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk/~garabik/ |
| __..--^^^--..__    garabik @ melkor.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk     |
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!

Reply to: