Make Unicode bugs release critical?
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:14:42AM +0100, Miroslav Kure wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 09:37:54AM +0000, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > However, I'm curious: is there a lot of software that is broken with
> > Unicode, particularly with the UTF-8 encoding? I can't remember anything
> > much in recent times.
> Mostly it is just the old stuff like
> - eterm, aterm
> - elvis
> - X tools from the basic package (xman, xmessage, xmore, ...)
> - TeX without additional packages
XeTeX and XeLaTeX allow native UTF-8 input. Should be made the
default, IMO, given how obsolete and broken the "standard" TeX
encodings are. Being able to write in actual text rather than
a lot of illegible incantations was a major revelation, and it's
a bit sad it was in that situation in the first place. It also
sorts out the awful font support, so you can use standard
freetype-registered fonts, again without the pain. Result: a
document you can actually read in the editor!
IMO all those broken terminal emulators, editors and tools should
be put in the bin. There are plenty of non-broken replacements, so
why keep them around to bitrot even further? It's not like it's
going to cause massive inconvenience--they are long obsolete.
.'`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
`- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.