| 1 |
On Friday 08 October 2004 3:29 pm, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:31:52 +0200 Marius Mauch <genone@g.o> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
> | On 10/07/04 Brian wrote: |
| 6 |
> | > What is the official encoding method(s) for the changelogs. It has |
| 7 |
> | > been reported that porthole often fails getting the changelogs due |
| 8 |
> | > to the encoding. Currently it is assuming ascii. Many are |
| 9 |
> | > reported to be iso-8859-1. |
| 10 |
> | |
| 11 |
> | I don't think we have an official encoding, but I think ciaranm knows |
| 12 |
> | a bit more about that issue. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Yup. We *need* to have an official encoding. Reason being, at least one |
| 15 |
> developer has a non-(ASCII as in characters 0..126 only) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
ASCII defines 128 characters: 0-127 |
| 18 |
Why cut the last off? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> character in their name. Said encoding should also apply to ebuilds, but not |
| 21 |
> to files/ entries (I could give the lengthy explanation if anyone really |
| 22 |
> wants to know, but basically certain things would break). |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I've been whinging about this on and off for about a year now, and every |
| 25 |
> time it's been dismissed as irrelevant :) |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> If we're going to standardise on an encoding, it's got to be UTF-8. |
| 28 |
> iso-8859-1 is not sufficient to represent every developer (and potential |
| 29 |
> patch contributor)'s name correctly. UTF-16 and plain old four byte |
| 30 |
> unicode aren't compatible with our existing files (in UTF-8, characters |
| 31 |
> 1 to 126 are the same as in regular ASCII). Yes, UTF-8 kinda sucks in |
| 32 |
> terms of space when encoding japanese or russian characters, but since |
| 33 |
> these will be a rare occurance it's not really a problem. |
| 34 |
Yay for UTF-8! |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Luke-Jr |
| 37 |
Developer, Utopios |
| 38 |
http://utopios.org/ |
Archives