Re: POW -- which locales Just Work?

Subject: Re: POW -- which locales Just Work?
From: Vlad Harchev (
Date: Thu Mar 01 2001 - 10:27:07 CST

On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ha shao" <>
> To: <>
> 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, 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.

 Hmm, if xml parser supports only utf8 or utf-16, it's broken. People should
stick to libxml then. Also, a trivial sed script and iconv can be used to
convert xml file in any encoding to valid xml file utf8 encoded.

 For non-latin1 languages, e.g. russian, conversion to utf8 doubles file in
size, and makes it uneditable by plain editors. There are much more
editors that don't support utf8 than xml parsers that don't support all
encodings understood by iconv(3).

 So, PLEASE don't stick to utf8 for all locales.
> --
> Med venlig helsing
> Karl Ove Hufthammer

 Best regards,

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 11:23:14 CST