Bug#99933: second attempt at more comprehensive unicode policy
At 05:03 PM 1/8/2003 -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Yes, there are UTF-8 versions available. Does everyone have them? Do we
enable them by default?
Everyone who has the most recent version. They're enabled by default if you're
running a UTF-8 locale, like they should be.
Do all other vendors ship them?
Can we control this? If you're sitting at a computer that doesn't have a new
terminal, you can run filterm or install a newer xterm.
> No one said that we were going to remove non-UTF-8 locales in Sarge. The
Colin was advocating what amounted to exactly that. He was advocating
removing all support for non-UTF8 terminals.
But not in Sarge.
> If it was written prior to Unicode, it's useless to the Ethiopians and
the Iranians and
> a large part of the rest of the world; it's likely to be useless to the
Japanese and
> Chinese as well.
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.
No argument here; it would be nice if ls would escape invalid byte sequences
and bad characters, but it's not broken.
> 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.
But we do do that -- we have filterm in the distribution. A filter between
the terminal
and the system is the easiest place to solve this problem.
David Starner - starner@okstate.edu
(starner@okstate.edu may be disappearing soon - dvdeug@email.ro will work,
but is not suitable for high-volume traffic.)
Reply to: