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.