|
 |
Am 28.06.2018 um 19:26 schrieb Thorsten Froehlich:
>> Probably neither. The `global_settings { charset FOO }` mechanism isn't
>> really ideal, and I'm pretty sure I'll be deprecating it and introducing
>> something different, possibly along the following lines:
>
> Well, the idea of it being inside a file was really simple: To have the encoding
> of a file's strings inside the file.
The problem there is that the setting in the file also governs the
presumed encoding of strings inside /other/ files, namely include files.
> Of course, the more meaningful question - nowadays that even Windows 10 Notepad
> supports UTF-8 properly - is if there is any non-legacy (aka Windows editor)
> reason not to require input to be UTF-8. It is extremely unlikely that anything
> will replace UTF-8 any time soon...
I pretty much agree there. But as long as we're rolling out legacy tools
(aka Windows editor) ourselves, we ought to support it properly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
On 29/06/2018 13:10, Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aol com> wrote:
>> On 28/06/2018 18:26, Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>>> It is extremely unlikely that anything
>>> will replace UTF-8 any time soon...
>>
>> Who in their right mind would ever need more than 640k of ram?
>>
>> ;-)
>
> ROFL - at least designers of standards got smarter and Unicode is pretty
> extensible, though the focus seems to be on more and more emoticons...
>
>
>
>
I could not resist it. It is a classic (rebuff).
I think that in English, emoticons are not a bad idea*. As English can
be quite ambiguous.
Warp seldom used them and I was always misunderstanding his meaning. :-(
For instance. Replying "interesting". Does not mean "It is interesting"
but "Not worth perusing, it is not a good idea".
*
I don't mean crying cats and the like.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
