On Friday 08 October 2004 3:29 pm, Marius Mauch wrote: > On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:31:52 +0200 Marius Mauch > > 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/