MvdV>> So why did you call it cheating when I revealed that for UTF-8 MvdV>> I use notepad as an external editor for Golded?
MK> Sorry I forgot to respond to the above in the original reply. The MK> reason I call it cheating is that anyone reading a message 'created' MK> by GoldED+ is going to get the impression that it is utf-8 capable MK> when it obviously isn't.
But Golded IS UTF-8 capable. This very message demonsrates it. It is just that in its native configuration, it can handle only a limited subset of the Unicode character set.
To which I may add that /NO/ UTF-8 implementation covers the full Unicode character set. You could not see my Hebrew characters...
MK> If you, and others following this same idea, were to correct the MK> tearline to indicate that an external editor is being deployed to take MK> care of the shortcomings then that would make it more honest and save MK> others much grief if they started using GoldED+ thinking they could MK> read/write utf-8 fidonet messages based on your (and others) postings.
I think you are overreacting. I am not aware of anyone experiencing "much grief" regarding any misunderstanding of Golded's UTF-8 implementation. I also think you are underrating the audiance. That Goldeds support fot UTF-8 is ver limited is well known. Ín fact there is presently no Fidonet reader that has more ative UTF-8 support than Golded. So I doubt enyone is going to be bitterly dissapointed when he/she learns that presently Golded can only handle umlauts and cyrillic in one and the same message when making use of an external editor.
MK> Perhaps 'cheat' is not the correct word but at the moment I cannot MK> come up with a better word for this particular methodology. What do MK> you suggest instead?
