Re: Follow-up to multiple groups

In on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 01:22:57 -0800, Mike
Easter <MikeE@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mike Dee wrote:

Bit of a mess for the plain-texters tho'.

Call me old-fashioned, but for various reasons I think it would be better
to (generally) limit the characters to ascii, realizing that there are
some languages for which that would be unsatisfactory, for which UTF-8
would be 'alternative' rather than standard.

You immediately have a problem if you want to refer in English to the
composer of The Miraculous Mandarin or the author of Jane Eyre.

Béla Bartók
Charlotte Brontë

The latter isn't even foreign!

The fact that some people would rather that the world converted over to a
basic UTF-8 (as the new standard) instead of basic ascii still leads to
various other 8 bit conflicts, such as 8859 derivatives and other

There's no harm in retaining ASCII where ASCII suffices. But when
ASCII isn't sufficient, UTF-8 has the advantage over legacy character
sets in that much less translation between different character sets is

Even tho' UTF-8 would seem to be 'universal', in reality it still 'favors'
vanilla Latin charsets, because unicode other than UTF-8 is more efficient
some letters with diacritics and Asian chars.

UTF-8 isn't perfect, but it works more efficiently than having dozens
of different character sets.

Some usages of UTF-8 doctoring of the handle/nym remind me of little girls
(or silly young women) who like to put a heart-shaped dot over the 'i' in
their name for the sake of being cutesy..

J*ff<pointy-hat>R*lf is an obvious example. But people with names like
Siobhán or Siân shouldn't be required to misspell them.

PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1:
extra slrn documentation:
newsgroup name validator: