[cc grass-dev]
Hi Robert,
2008/3/11, Robert Szczepanek <grass@szczepanek.pl>:
I am newbie in translations and my question probably is simple one.
Which *.po files coding standard is recommended now?
UTF or ISO?
I continue polish translation (i.e. UTF-8 and ISO-8859-2).
I guess ISO(?)
Martin
--
Martin Landa <landa.martin gmail.com> * http://gama.fsv.cvut.cz/~landa *
Martin Landa wrote:
> I am newbie in translations and my question probably is simple one.
> Which *.po files coding standard is recommended now?
> UTF or ISO?
> I continue polish translation (i.e. UTF-8 and ISO-8859-2).I guess ISO(?)
I think so. If your system supports UTF-8, it will support converting
ISO-8859-2 to UTF-8. OTOH, if your system has negligible I18N support,
you'll have problems if the files are in UTF-8.
Also, using ISO-8859-* encodings helps to discourage people from
gratuitous use of features such as "enhanced" punctuation.
--
Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>
(back to old posting)
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 6:40 AM, Glynn Clements
<glynn@gclements.plus.com> wrote:
Martin Landa wrote:
Robert Szczepanek wrote:
> I am newbie in translations and my question probably is simple one.
> Which *.po files coding standard is recommended now?
> UTF or ISO?
> I continue polish translation (i.e. UTF-8 and ISO-8859-2).I guess ISO(?)
I think so. If your system supports UTF-8, it will support converting
ISO-8859-2 to UTF-8. OTOH, if your system has negligible I18N support,
you'll have problems if the files are in UTF-8.Also, using ISO-8859-* encodings helps to discourage people from
gratuitous use of features such as "enhanced" punctuation.
Now, in 2010, is this still valid? It seems that UTF-8 reached most systems.
Also the poEdit software converts to UTF-8 while saving which
I have to convert back with iconv to ISO-8859-15 (I tried DE).
I assume that there will be language families for the various encodings.
Recommendations welcome.
?
Markus
Markus Neteler wrote:
> Martin Landa wrote:
>> Robert Szczepanek wrote:
>> > I am newbie in translations and my question probably is simple one.
>> > Which *.po files coding standard is recommended now?
>> > UTF or ISO?
>> > I continue polish translation (i.e. UTF-8 and ISO-8859-2).
>>
>> I guess ISO(?)
>
> I think so. If your system supports UTF-8, it will support converting
> ISO-8859-2 to UTF-8. OTOH, if your system has negligible I18N support,
> you'll have problems if the files are in UTF-8.
>
> Also, using ISO-8859-* encodings helps to discourage people from
> gratuitous use of features such as "enhanced" punctuation.Now, in 2010, is this still valid?
It will probably valid for a long time to come. Any system which
supports UTF-8 will also support ISO-8859-*, but the converse isn't
necessarily true.
The extent to which UTF-8 is less compatible than the locale-specific
encoding will decrease over time, but it's unlikely to reach parity in
the foreseeable future.
It seems that UTF-8 reached most systems.
Also the poEdit software converts to UTF-8 while saving which
I have to convert back with iconv to ISO-8859-15 (I tried DE).
If you feel that you need to use UTF-8, at least ensure that the file
doesn't use any characters outside of the appropriate repertoire, so
that the file can be converted back to ISO-8859-* (etc) by the user if
necessary.
--
Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>