On Friday 08 October 2004 3:29 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:31:52 +0200 Marius Mauch <genone@g.o>
>
> wrote:
> | On 10/07/04  Brian wrote:
> | > What is the official encoding method(s) for the changelogs.   It has
> | > been reported that porthole often fails getting the changelogs due
> | > to the encoding.  Currently it is assuming ascii.   Many are
> | > reported to be iso-8859-1.
> |
> | I don't think we have an official encoding, but I think ciaranm knows
> | a bit more about that issue.
>
> Yup. We *need* to have an official encoding. Reason being, at least one
> developer has a non-(ASCII as in characters 0..126 only)

ASCII defines 128 characters: 0-127
Why cut the last off?

> character in their name. Said encoding should also apply to ebuilds, but not
> to files/ entries (I could give the lengthy explanation if anyone really
> wants to know, but basically certain things would break). 
>
> I've been whinging about this on and off for about a year now, and every
> time it's been dismissed as irrelevant :)
>
> If we're going to standardise on an encoding, it's got to be UTF-8.
> iso-8859-1 is not sufficient to represent every developer (and potential
> patch contributor)'s name correctly. UTF-16 and plain old four byte
> unicode aren't compatible with our existing files (in UTF-8, characters
> 1 to 126 are the same as in regular ASCII). Yes, UTF-8 kinda sucks in
> terms of space when encoding japanese or russian characters, but since
> these will be a rare occurance it's not really a problem.
Yay for UTF-8!
-- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/