On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Thomas E. Dickey wrote: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Jungshik Shin wrote: > > > On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Thomas E. Dickey wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Jungshik Shin wrote: > > > > > > > By not being effective, do you mean that vim with UTF-8 support would > > > > not work even in a console that supports UTF-8? How about connecting > > > > to a Linux host using a UTF-8 terminal emulator (e.g. Kermit)? IMHO, > > > > there's certainly a need for making the default vim speak UTF-8. > > > > > > "want" isn't the same as "need" > > > > People want it so that there's a need for it. > > no - you're misusing the word.
All right. As a native speaker, you must be much better in telling a subtle difference of two words than I am. > If people need something, they'll sit down and do the work. > If people want something, they'll sit back and demand that someone else do > it (as on this mailing list). Why do you think they 'sit back and demand' (quoting you) instead of doing it themselves? Because they cannot do it? I'm sure all the people who asked the default vim package to support UTF-8 are technically well-versed to do the work. (at least, they can compile vim with whatever option they want although they may not know how to package it for Debian). They asked the package maintainer to do the work (which is very trivial) not because they cannot do it (for their own need and use, they can just compile it) but because doing so would benefit those who cannot do the work and would help spread UTF-8. In this case, there isn't any technical hurdle to overcome. There's only a 'philosophical' difference as to whether UTF-8 is a necessity or not in the minimal Vim package. So, what they've been doing is make their case to the maintainer. Jungshik Shin - Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
