COMPOUND_TEXT versus UTF8_STRING

[Owen Taylor]

On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 09:52 +0100, Markus Kuhn wrote:
> Keith Packard wrote on 2004-09-22 18:57 UTC:
> > I'd rather just allow UTF-8 text in the existing ICCCM properties, but I 
> > think that doesn't provide a reasonable transition strategy.
> 
> There is certainly no harm done by encouraging in the next ICCCM version
> the recipients of all the properties where STRING and COMPOUND_TEXT are
> allowed today to also accept UTF8_STRING, in addition to the existing
> STRING and COMPOUND_TEXT ones.

Well, there is no harm in allowing clients to *accept* UTF8_STRING, but
I don't think they can be allowed to produce it, so I don't see the
advantage.

Old software gets kept around amazingly long. I don't see having a
red-letter day where old software that doesn't understand UTF8_STRING
gets declared broken.

Basically, I think you are trying to solve a non-problem here; the
subject was discussed on wm-spec-list a couple of years ago, the
solution of parallel properties was adopted. Everybody implemented
them. It works.

Regards,
					Owen


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20040923/0fb57dcc/attachment.pgp