On 13 Jan 14 00:58, Maurice Kinal wrote to Nicholas Boel:
NB>> Whether any software actually makes use of it is another story
MK> It doesn't need to in the case of utf-8. utf-8 characters stick out MK> like a sore thumb.
In all reality, yes you are right. In the Fidonet world, at one time developers may have though about implementing UTF-8, and maybe their thinking was to add the CHRS kludge so other charsets could translate it, while with the level kludge, knowing it was multibyte, be prepared to remove any multibyte characters if it couldn't handle them.
That's a lot of maybes, though. I'm completely guessing there.
NB>> it's supposed to let other software know there are multibyte NB>> characters in the header or message
MK> Which other software?
Before getting your panties in a bunch over it and going about another tyrade, I already agreed there is no software out there using it, except possibly the few sysop editors out there. Even then those aren't using it the way they should be, since they can't display most multibyte characters with or without the level kludge.
MK> The reason I use utf-8, when I actually put multibyte characters MK> (seldom) in any text based file or whatever I/0, is that there are no MK> real restrictions to any specific range of codes. utf-8 should remain MK> pure methinks. I honestly believe they are more powerful left as is. MK> There is no 8-bit codepage that can compete or make a claim to MK> universality.
The reason I use it, is because I use Linux, and every distro I have used for the past few years has it enabled by default. I've been able to see more textfiles, console websites, etc. much clearer ever since I jumped from the 8859-1 bandwagon, so I stuck with it and haven't looked back. It really is the best universal charset.
Regards, Nick
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130910 * Origin: Dark Sorrow | darksorrow.us (1:154/701)
