Text 7061, 55 rader
Skriven 2014-01-04 16:32:00 av Nicholas Boel (1:154/701)
   Kommentar till text 7054 av Kees van Eeten (2:280/5003.4)
Ärende: all over but the crying?
================================
Hello Kees,

On 04 Jan 14 20:08, Kees van Eeten wrote to Nicholas Boel:

 NB>> If what Kees says is true, and it's in the translation tables
 NB>> (which I've tried manually setting to a level 4, and also using a
 NB>> workaround that was done for the Win32 version that Michiel
 NB>> uses), then those translation tables are still maintained by the
 NB>> developers of Golded, since their formatting has been changed so
 NB>> Golded can read them properly. There's definitely something
 NB>> wrong, and I'd like to find out what it is.

 KE>  The tables provided by the developers of Golded only convert from
 KE>  8bit sets to utf-8. The for the otherway around are by Michiel.
 KE>  The level 4 is documented in the relevant FTSC document. But it does
 KE>  not follows that Golded has it implemented.

Unless Michiel was mistaken, he told me it is the tables that convert from the 
8bit sets to UTF-8 that set the level parameter while I'm posting a message. 
Since I am only translating TO UTF-8, and don't have a need to translate back 
the other way, that is for the reader to do. Correct?

 NB>>>> As it seems, the current maintainer of Golded happens to be one
 NB>>>> of the authors of FTS-5003.001, so that may help the cause at
 NB>>>> least.

 KE>  That sould be a better place for the final verdict.

Maybe, but until some answers are provided, we don't know where the issue 
really lies. It would almost be better off if FTN software didn't put a level 
on UTF-* messages, since it is described that level 4 is only for multibyte 
character sets, which according to FTS-5003.001 is only unicode.

So, we could talk about the issue with Golded putting a level 2 on a UTF-8 
message in the GOLDED echo, or we could talk about dropping the level 4 after 
a UTF-8 CHRS kludge in this echo. Which do you prefer?

The fact of the matter is, quite a few Linux distrobutions come with UTF-8 
enabled by default these days. To support it wouldn't be a bad thing, would 
it?

Or would you rather sit and do absolutely nothing?

 NB>> While it is in relation to documented standards, I suppose I can
 NB>> agree there.

 KE>  It discusses an implementation not the standard.

Depends which way you are looking at it.

Regards,
Nick

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130910
 * Origin: Dark Sorrow | darksorrow.us (1:154/701)