Radovan Garabik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit > > TELL ME HOW IN THE HELL I CAN WRITE A MAIL WITH WORDS FROM > > HUNGARIAN, SLOVAK, RUSSIAN AN JAPANESE TOGETHER!!!! > > > > Unicode was not panacea, but it solved most of the problems, > > although setting it up was not painless.
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 09:21:05PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > This has nothing to do with documentation being converted to Unicode. > > That's what everyone is on about. Actually, what everyone is on about is a wholesale migration of debian to Unicode, with writing documentation as an easy first step. > We can all go for application to be utf-8-aware, and I won't stop > that. > > Converting all documentation to utf-8 is ridiculous, and unnecessary. Do you think the currently proposed policy (documentation should be written in unicode, packages should use the same encoding for all its documentation) is in some sense bad? If so, could you suggest a better phrasing? It looks to me as if unicode needs some "han-shift" characters (and maybe something more -- I don't know enough about oriental languages to say for sure) before it can properly deal with oriental locals. It also looks to me as if X needs some major protocol revisions before it can efficiently handle the representation of these characters. So, maybe we shouldn't even be talking about unicode. However, unicode does solve a variety of problems, and it has the potential to solve many more. And, if we're going to solve them we need some kind of approach, so that we can gradually make progress. I'm not completely happy with the "convert the documentation" approach myself -- debian shouldn't be about introducing unnecessary differences in upstream packages. [Much better to become involved upstream.] But, I find that I don't have anything better to offer. Thanks, -- Raul
