On Sat, 2004-10-09 at 06:53, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 20:05:16 -0500 (EST) Ed Grimm
> <paranoid@...> wrote:
> | On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > As I recall, 127 is flaky. Come to think of it, so is 0-31ish as
> | > well. So maybe I should've said
> | > [a-zA-Z0-9\-_,.<>?/\\;:'@#~\]{}\+="$%^&* ] or something...
> | > Basically, anything even the slightest bit flaky, plus newlines, is
> | > prone to explode.
> | 
> | I hope you like long lines.
> 
> Well, remember that there's no standard way of doing newlines. Or that
> there're at least three standards, depending upon how you look at it. 
> 
> Eh, not that this is really relevant anyway. All that matters is that
> ASCII is insufficient and that UTF-8 is most likely the best
> alternative.

Thank you.

   I have changed porthole's code to try decode(utf_8), then try
decode(iso-8859-1).  Failing either of those Porthole will display an
unknown encoding error and to please report it to bugs.gentoo.org as
well as porthole's bug tracker.


-- 
Brian <dol-sen@...>


--
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list