Jernej Simon?i? writes:
> On Thursday, December 4, 2003, 23:37:09, Fredrik Tolf wrote:
> > > 6. Shouldn't users be able to switch charsets? For example, chats in
> >    Japanese (or other East Asian languages) would benefit much more
> >    from EUC-JP or UTF-16 than from UTF-8. Chats in Cyrillic would also
> >    benefit from eg. KOI8. Of course, UTF-8 would be the standard. If a
> >    message cannot be encoded with the selected charset, the hub could
> >    replace invalid characters with eg. question marks to indicate that
> >    the user should switch charset to be able to recieve messages
> >    correctly. Another possibility is to only allow switching between
> >    different UTF-x charsets, so that all characters still can be
> >    encoded, only with different levels of bandwidth wastage. A third
> >    possibility is to be able to MIME encode messages to temporarily
> >    switch charsets, like =?UTF-8?Q?=E3=81=82?= to include a Japanese
> >    "?" even though the user's current charset is KOI8.
> > Won't adding different charset support just overbloat the client? Just
> supporting utf8 would cover all languages, even if it would make the chat a
> bit bigger - but I believe that everybody agrees that chat is far from being
> bandwidth demanding. Is it really worth adding 890k iconv dependance?

I don't know how it works on Windows, but on GNU systems, just change
the charset passed to iconv().

> =?...?= encoding also adds just another bit of unnecessary bloat.

That I can agree to, though.

Fredrik Tolf