On Friday 06 August 2010, you wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I feel like agreeing to both the sides, but not without proper reason.
IMHO, xml files *must* support the full unicode charset when they load. That
said, we must play by the rules and specify the encoding at the head of the
xml file. Else, Latin-1 is assumed and strings cannot contain non-latin chars.
It is not about English as a base of translation. It is about being able to
properly support charsets. Example, if you want a string to contain the
copyright, Euro, degree or other symbols.
As for v5.0, my suggestion is to NOT change the behavior between minor
versions. If it is not a bug, if it doesn't stop somebody from working, don't
change it!
On Friday 06 August 2010, you wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I feel like agreeing to both the sides, but not without proper reason.
IMHO, xml files *must* support the full unicode charset when they load. That
said, we must play by the rules and specify the encoding at the head of the
xml file. Else, Latin-1 is assumed and strings cannot contain non-latin chars.
It is not about English as a base of translation. It is about being able to
properly support charsets. Example, if you want a string to contain the
copyright, Euro, degree or other symbols.
As for v5.0, my suggestion is to NOT change the behavior between minor
versions. If it is not a bug, if it doesn't stop somebody from working, don't
change it!