Hello Bj”rn,   
      
   On Monday January 07 2013 01:39, you wrote to Ward Dossche:   
      
    BF>    Since my 2:203/6 entry still doesn't compile, I guess we're still   
    BF> stuck with the 26 character set, dictated by zone 1? Can this really   
    BF> be true, in this year of 2013?   
      
   I am all for lifting the ASCII only limitation for the nodelist. Seo Andrew   
   how about an option:   
      
   AllowNonAscii 0|1    ??   
      
    BF>    If you had rather used my Y2K patched version (where the outdated   
    BF> 26 character limitation was one of corrections I made), available for   
    BF> more than 12 years now, 2:203/6 would read correctly.   
      
   Correctly in what character encoding scheme?   
      
   Because here is where I see an issue. If 7 bit only was forced on us by what   
   now is a majority, we do not want to do the same unto others do we? I strongly   
   suspect that you used an 8 bit character set for your Umlaut experiment. Like   
   CP850 or Latin-1. That is fine for us Western Europeans who need umlauts and   
   accnets.  But not so fine for what is now the majority: those who use a   
   cyrillic character set for their native languages. It is them that are the   
   majority now. They need CP866 or KOI8R...   
      
   Surely we do not want to force CP850 or Latin-1 one onto them do we?   
      
   Unfortunately I see no practical way to swicth charactere encoding on the fly   
   in the nodelist. Also unfortunately there is no 8 bit character set that   
   covers both umlauts, accents AND cyrillic.   
      
   So... /if/ we allow non ASCII in the nodleist, it will have to be encoded as   
   UTF-8.   
      
      
   Cheers, Michiel   
      
   --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320   
    * Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)