|From||Richard Menedetter||2:310/31.0||Date Write||2018-06-12 16:16:13|
|To||Maurice Kinal||0:0/0.0||Date Arrived||2018-06-12 17:51:01|
|Subj||appearances are decieving|
12 Jun 2018 13:22, from Maurice Kinal -> Richard Menedetter:
RM>> But I also do not have the need to send characters of languages
RM>> that I do not speak.
MK> I can relate especially considering that I haven't ever mastered the
MK> language I speak, nevermind ones that I don't.
I agree ... same here ;)
MK> Having said that I can see where utf-8 supported echoareas might
MK> improve the current situation in Fidonet.
MK> It is worth a shot ... maybe.
It is a a balancing between the added value vs. how many people will not be
able to use it.
For english discussion for me personally the value is very small, and the fact
that most people will not be able to participate is bad.
So for me personally it is not a viable usecase currently.
If you take a look at how many people use fido packages which do not even
support the generation of a REPLY kludge, I do not think that we will see
widespread UTF-8 adoption in our lifetime.
RM>> Some people tried to add UTF-8 support, but they gave up.
MK> I don't blame them.
MK> Both golded and msged will screw them up with or without a CHRS
What exactly do you mean?
I am using it daily and it works just fine within the scope of the
If I receive an 8 bit message in CP850, it will be correctly translated to ISO
8859-1 and displayed correctly.
(I am dumbin down my terminal to ISO 8859-1 in the golded start script.)
That those software packages have limited scopes is a different story.
IF they would support UTF-8, the implementation could correctly translate from
eg CP850 to UTF-8.
* Origin: For these prices, you can't expect real quotes. (2:310/31)