On Vi, 27 mar 20, 23:15:12, David Wright wrote: > > However, the actual problem that Russell introduced was how a > character set—any character set—should be encoded in the email header > parameter's value. And the RFC answer is "not in Base64", which is for > unstructured fields, as illustrated by the header of my previous post. > Mutt, as expected, writes conformant values but can be instructed to > decode particular non-conformant ones. So any test involving mutt as source is irrelevant. > > According to > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_alphabet#Digital_typography>, > > it originally used ISO 8859-2. > > … aka Latin-2. Not being Romanian, I can't comment on the relative > popularity of that and Latin-10 (ISO 8859-16) or whether the latter > was still-born. And… > > > Of course, it would probably use UTF-8 > > on most modern systems. > > Yes, that also seems more up-to-date and expressive, with support for > distinguishing obscure (to me) variants like cedilla vs comma below. Right. <rant> Apparently Microsoft (and Adobe?) had to come up with the support for Romanian by themselves, because the responsible Romanian entities didn't bother at the time. Unfortunately they got it wrong (not blaming them, just stating a fact). The wrong characters are still in use now (even though correct support was included in Windows 7 - for XP there was a language pack), also because many font creators got confused and didn't implement support correctly (missing characters, characters in wrong positions, etc). This (and the fact that many Romanians don't even bother to use any diacritics at all) makes searching for exact strings... challenging. </rant> Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature