7 Apr
2007
7 Apr
'07
10:10 p.m.
On Apr 7, 2007, at 10:49 AM, Gilles Serasset wrote:
Or any compatible encoding like ISO 8859-1, etc. This is the case
now I think.
ISO latin 1 IS NOT compatible with UTF-8... only ASCII (7bits) is...
That's a good idea...
[snip]
Sure but that's ok if the encoding is specified (file.encoding),
right? That said I agree that no conversion is better.
Well, not here, as the package file is a file that has been
produced by somebody else, on another plateform, hence either we
decide that all files are always UTF-8, or it is encoded in the
producer's plateform encoding, not the one that is used to read
it... That's why we have to delegate encoding detection to the xml
parser.
Good point. I agree.
[snip]
Thanks
-Vincent
PS: Thanks for everyone's help in bringing me up to date on I18N. I'm
slowly starting to understand how that works... ;-)
Hi,
On 6 avr. 07, at 22:28, Vincent Massol wrote:
It may be good, but then, you'll need your input (skin) files to be
delivered in that encoding... Well for now it is as it only has ascii.
... and it should remain like this and we should use native2ascii or
something like that in our build to ensure it remains like this I think.
I did not
do any extend test to see if this pârameter was useful.
I can only say that teher are many places in the code where you
have :
InputStreamReader ir = new InputStreamReader(is)
This is one of the numerous examples of badly writen code where
the encoding is not specified... Hence the plateform falls back
to the file.encoding property value.
yep. I'm not sure it's bad. Or at least I'm curious to understand
why it's bad. However,
there is currently no accentuated chars in the skin
files (that are read on disk), hence it somehow works, because
all plateform encodings do share the encoding of ASCII chars. It
will ne be the same if you were to use UTF-16 for instance...
IMO the encoding to use should be left to the user and be a
configuration option (as it is now) but we should configure
everything to use UTF8 by default.
3) I see that in our standalone installation we
use -
Dfile.encoding=iso-8859-1. Now that I've read Joel's tutorial it
seems to me this is not going to work for everyone and that we
should rather use -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 by default. WDYT?
This will mean that all files that are read by the server, will
have to be encoded in UTF-8...
(NOTE: resource files (as the one used in xwiki I18N are special
as they should be encoded in ASCII with \uXXXX to represent non
ascii chars).
Exactly which is why this is best left to the user to decide which
encoding they need to use... I don't think we should force our
encoding. However I'm proposing that we do: System.setProperty
("file.encoding", getParam("xwiki.encoding")) in XWiki
initialization to set the platform encoding to be the encoding
specified in xwiki.cfg. 4) Should we use the platform encoding or default
to using UTF-8
all the time? (this question is related to 1)). I think we
should use the platform encoding but I'm curious to know what
others think.
We should NOT use the plateform encoding. The reason is that all
files read by the server (skin files mainly) will be read using
the plateform encoding and their actual encoding. As they only
contain ascii chars upo to now, it worked, but, if you add
accents in them, and you give write them in encoding X (at edit
time), you are not guarranteed that the plateform encoding will
by X at run time. Hence you should specify the file encoding
whenever you read a file.
... applied!
good
However, I would rather use
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/io/
api-release/org/apache/commons/io/IOUtils.html#toString
(java.io.InputStream) than code it ourselves... Sounds safer,
shorter, less maintenance, etc to me... :)
This method has exaclty the same problem, it'll use the plateform
encoding, event if the inputstream is not encoded in the
plateform encoding and even if it correctly declares its own
encoding... Hence it will be buggy.