[darcs-users] blue color bug

Peter "Firefly" Lund firefly at diku.dk
Mon Jul 5 01:37:39 UTC 2004

On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, David Roundy wrote:

> Either 5) or perhaps some degree of auto-detection.

Sounds good!

> I understand most non-utf8 encodings aren't valid utf8, so one can at
> least autodetect whether it is *not* utf8.

Sometimes ;)

>  So one could check if it appears to be utf8, and
> if so try to display it correctly... and otherwise assume it's in the right
> format for the current locale and hope for the best?

We would rather not have to look at too much text to make that decision.
We also wouldn't like the encoding guesses to change on a line-by-line or
hunk-by-hunk basis (I wouldn't, at least).

For v1.1 we would want an extra embellishment, I think: if something is
encoding in UTF8 in a weird way, repeat the weird part hexescaped
in blue right after each run of weirdly encoded UTF8.

I'm thinking about things like combining characters and the insane number
of extra copies of Latin letters in the math section of unicode.

Ah well, it's probably best for now to just escape bytes outside the range
[32..126].  This should probably NOT be done with isPrint, isAscii, etc... :)

> While I'll accept patches in this area, I'm not likely to work on it
> myself, since I haven't ever used characters above 127, and don't know what
> they should look like if I had some.

I have played extensively with those :)

Maybe after I have beaten libwww totally into submission...


More information about the darcs-users mailing list