UTF-8 or ISO?

[Robert Szczepanek-3]

Hi,

Welcome all translators and coders.
I am newbie in translations and my question probably is simple one.
Which *.po files coding standard is recommended now?
UTF or ISO?
I continue polish translation (i.e. UTF-8 and ISO-8859-2).

Robert Szczepanek

[Martin Landa]

[cc grass-dev]

Hi Robert,

2008/3/11, Robert Szczepanek <[hidden email]>:
>  I am newbie in translations and my question probably is simple one.
>  Which *.po files coding standard is recommended now?
>  UTF or ISO?
>  I continue polish translation (i.e. UTF-8 and ISO-8859-2).

I guess ISO(?)

Martin

--
Martin Landa <landa.martin gmail.com> * http://gama.fsv.cvut.cz/~landa *
_______________________________________________
grass-translations mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-translations

[Glynn Clements]

Martin Landa wrote:

> >  I am newbie in translations and my question probably is simple one.
> >  Which *.po files coding standard is recommended now?
> >  UTF or ISO?
> >  I continue polish translation (i.e. UTF-8 and ISO-8859-2).
>
> I guess ISO(?)

I think so. If your system supports UTF-8, it will support converting
ISO-8859-2 to UTF-8. OTOH, if your system has negligible I18N support,
you'll have problems if the files are in UTF-8.

Also, using ISO-8859-* encodings helps to discourage people from
gratuitous use of features such as "enhanced" punctuation.

--
Glynn Clements <[hidden email]>
_______________________________________________
grass-translations mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-translations

[Egor Vyscrebentsov]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:41:53 -0700 (PDT) Robert Szczepanek wrote:

> Welcome all translators and coders.
> I am newbie in translations and my question probably is simple one.
> Which *.po files coding standard is recommended now?
> UTF or ISO?
> I continue polish translation (i.e. UTF-8 and ISO-8859-2).

UTF-8.
It was an error when russian translation was switched from UTF-8 to KOI8-R.
In most of the projects there is a tendency to switch to utf-8.
Also, UTF-8 becomes default system locale. (For ru_RU at least.)

--
Thanks, evyscr
_______________________________________________
grass-translations mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-translations

[Martin Landa]

Hi,

2008/3/12, Egor Vyscrebentsov <[hidden email]>:

>  > Welcome all translators and coders.
>  > I am newbie in translations and my question probably is simple one.
>  > Which *.po files coding standard is recommended now?
>  > UTF or ISO?
>  > I continue polish translation (i.e. UTF-8 and ISO-8859-2).
>
>
> UTF-8.
>  It was an error when russian translation was switched from UTF-8 to KOI8-R.
>  In most of the projects there is a tendency to switch to utf-8.
>  Also, UTF-8 becomes default system locale. (For ru_RU at least.)

e.g. Po files for Czech translation are using iso-8859-2, but it
doesn't mean that cs_CZ.UTF8 do not work. It is just question of po
file encoding AFAIU.

Martin

--
Martin Landa <landa.martin gmail.com> * http://gama.fsv.cvut.cz/~landa *
_______________________________________________
grass-translations mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-translations

[Robert Szczepanek-3]

Martin Landa-2 wrote:

>  > Which *.po files coding standard is recommended now?
>  > UTF or ISO?
>  > I continue polish translation (i.e. UTF-8 and ISO-8859-2).
>

Egor Vyscrebentsov wrote:

> UTF-8.
>  It was an error when russian translation was switched from UTF-8 to KOI8-R.
>  In most of the projects there is a tendency to switch to utf-8.
>  Also, UTF-8 becomes default system locale. (For ru_RU at least.)

e.g. Po files for Czech translation are using iso-8859-2, but it
doesn't mean that cs_CZ.UTF8 do not work. It is just question of po
file encoding AFAIU.

Martin

Thank you guys for anwers.
Following the tendency described by Egor, my first step working with Poedit was selection of UTF as default coding. Then I realized that due to my conversion of *.po files from ISO to UTF most of translation was treated as "changes".
After that I checked if it is possible to switch again to ISO without major problems. And it works.
So probably this is not so important issue at the moment...

Robert

[Glynn Clements]

Martin Landa wrote:

> >  > Welcome all translators and coders.
> >  > I am newbie in translations and my question probably is simple one.
> >  > Which *.po files coding standard is recommended now?
> >  > UTF or ISO?
> >  > I continue polish translation (i.e. UTF-8 and ISO-8859-2).
> >
> >
> > UTF-8.
> >  It was an error when russian translation was switched from UTF-8 to KOI8-R.
> >  In most of the projects there is a tendency to switch to utf-8.
> >  Also, UTF-8 becomes default system locale. (For ru_RU at least.)
>
> e.g. Po files for Czech translation are using iso-8859-2, but it
> doesn't mean that cs_CZ.UTF8 do not work. It is just question of po
> file encoding AFAIU.

GNU gettext uses UTF-8 for the .mo files, regardless of the encoding
used for the .po files, then converts to the locale's encoding at
run-time.

Some other gettext implementations store the data in the locale's
encoding, with no conversion at run-time. Such systems typically don't
use UTF-8 locales by default, and may not even offer them as an
option.

So, for GNU gettext the .po encoding doesn't matter, and a legacy
gettext will be better off with the locale's "historical" encoding
(e.g. ISO-8859-*, KOI8-R etc). Hence the preference to use the
historical encoding for .po files.

--
Glynn Clements <[hidden email]>
_______________________________________________
grass-translations mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-translations