Subject: Re: POW -- which locales Just Work?
From: Sam TH (sam@uchicago.edu)
Date: Thu Mar 01 2001 - 10:51:57 CST
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 05:31:55PM +0100, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ha shao" <hashao@chinese.com>
> To: <abiword-dev@abisource.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 2:36 PM
> Subject: Re: POW -- which locales Just Work?
>
> > On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 04:09:52PM +0400, hvv@hippo.ru wrote:
>
> > > From this sentence one may think that saving in unicode is a better
> approach
> > > than saving in native charset. It's wrong - since the charset is specified
> in
> > > the xml header, storing documents in any charset will work fine (as long as
> > > importing system's iconv understands that encoding).
>
> Saving in 'UTF-8' or 'UTF-16' *is* much better than using a other charsets. Not
> because of AbiWord, but because *other* programs may be reading AbiWord
> documents. People implementing XML parsers (which is used by several programs,
> e.g. XSLT engines) don't want to implement hundreds of character encodings, as
> this will 1) be much work, 2) increase the size/bloat, and 3) be unnecessary.
Yes. Expat supports only four encodings: UTF-8, UTF-16, ISO-8859-1,
and US-ASCII. We have to save in one of these. Right now we do
8859-1. I really think it would be benificial to do UTF-8, so that
things just work for more character encodings.
sam th
sam@uchicago.edu
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
GnuPG Key:
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 10:47:38 CST