Re: Kim Heino's response   
     By: Janis Kracht to Nicholas Boel on Mon Jan 23 2012 10:05 am   
      
    > Currently BBBS has limited import support only, no export. Having full UTF-8   
    > major work and it's not going to happen.   
      
   Limited import support only. So is it that messages with umlauts come in to you   
   just fine? But as soon as you export and/or reply to them, they're gone?   
      
    > For new software the only sane option is number one, of course.   
      
   Or, as far as the backwards compatibility part is concerned, is it safe to say   
   that "limited" support for 2 and 3 isn't feasable? How difficult would that be   
   since half of it is already there?   
      
    > > it's just there's a fellow in makenl_ng who thinks this will be a simple   
    > > change for Fidonet..   
      
   Wow. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I never once said it would be   
   simple. I've wondered and probably asked IF it would be simple, but I don't   
   pride myself on coding abilities, so I would have no idea how simple it would   
   be. Thanks again!   
      
    > Having for example nodelist file in UTF-8 is okay, there's no problem in tha   
    > Forcing UTF-8 in echo areas is a dead idea for two reasons:   
      
   Who said anything about forcing the issue?   
      
    > 1) UTF-8 support is so much work for old softwares that's impossible to do.   
      
   I'm pretty sure we mentioned it only being able to be done if there was   
   backwards compatibility. Did you forget to mention any ideas that were already   
   discussed to him?   
      
    > 2) Fidonet already has ^ACHARSET-kludge line. Each message can already have    
    > different charset, so that UTF-8 can be mixed with ISO 8859-15 etc in same e   
    > area, per message basis.   
      
   Perfect. Now if it was only exported the same format it was imported, it   
   wouldn't get messed up in the process. No?   
      
    > Forcing UTF-8 *only* instead of CHARSET-kludge is the wrong way. Allowing UT   
    > in CHARSET is fine and is highly recommended.   
      
   Again, never said anything about forcing any issues. Backwards compatibility   
   was also required in all of this. Apparantly all that was left out of the   
   question at hand.   
      
   --   
   Nick aka axisd - telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org   
                    http://pharcyde.org   
   --- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux   
    * Origin: thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (1:154/10)