On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 12:24:12AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Siggy Brentrup wrote: > > <snip> > > While understandable from the maintainer's point of view, luckily to > > my knowledge no (e.g.) asian maintainer has done it yet. If we allow > > non ascii in control fields, I see no valid argument to prohibit any > > character set. > > Um, there is a good argument to prohibit any character set which, when > interpreted as ASCII, contains control characters, CR, LF, etc. > > I believe that UTF-8 does *not* have this problem. > > There is also a good argument to prohibit any character set which is not > compatible with ASCII. > > Again, I believe that UTF-8 does *not* have this problem. Ummh, I knew I was to sloppy when writing that sentence. As already pointed out in a followup to Robert Leigh, my concern is on the presentation side. Let me try to reformulate: if we allow anything not representable in ascii in control fields, I see no valid argument to prohibit any alphabet (set of glyphs used to display names etc. in any language) Without a complete set of fonts installed there is no way to even distinguish maintainer names written in their own language. Regards . Siggy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature