Bug#99933: second attempt at more comprehensive unicode policy
On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 18:03, John Goerzen wrote:
> Colin was advocating what amounted to exactly that. He was advocating
> removing all support for non-UTF8 terminals.
Um, woah there. The key word is *eventually*. Again: the only "must"
my present policy proposal introduces is for filenames included
*directly* in Debian packages, or created by maintainer scripts.
Everything else is just a "should" or less, for now.
Could you reread my policy proposal again, please?
> I don't buy that at all. Lots of programs are simply pipes, working with
> data going in, echoing it back out.
>
> Colin asserted that ls was broken because it doesn't handle Unicode.
Broken? Not necessarily. But suboptimal? I think so.
> I
> submit that ls has always handled Unicode; if the filename is encoded with
> Unicode and your terminal is Unicode, it will show it in Unicode. It
> doesn't have to be made specifically aware to just shlep some data onto the
> screen.
True enough. But we could make the transition easier and increase
compatibility with legacy setups by making 'ls' and friends recode
output.
> > We can support non-UTF-8 terminals - as Radovan pointed out, the tool
>
> Then let's do that, and not consign the rest of the world to the junk bin.
I fully, completely agree.
Reply to: