Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
On 05/11/2007 09:25 AM, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
What's wrong with vdr using UTF-8 internally if it makes the code simpler? Offhand I could only imagine two places where using a different external encoding would be required and that's file names and tty i/o. Stuff like epg.data and svdrp should better use UTF-8 as you don't need to add extra meta data options to specify the encoding.
It's very simple: I don't like it! The two languages I can handle can be perfectly well represented with iso8859-1, so I just don't want to have to go through all the hassle with UTF-8. To me, a character is a character is a byte is a byte. Period.
Come on, take some "Scheissegalpillen" and stop beeing stubborn ;-) I aggree that UTF-8 isn't exactly delightful but from a user's point of view the hassle with UTF-8 is less than the hassle having to deal with multiple encodings. I mean even when ignoring languages other than German you have trouble with the stupid euro sign when using iso8859-*. Look at the bright side of UTF-8, at most places you don't really have to care about the actual characters so you don't need special treatment. After all it could be worse. If the new standard would be a fixed width multibyte encoding with embedded null bytes you'd have to really rewrite all your code.
cu Ludwig