🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:02:31 -0500, Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 07:23:00 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
>Zaghadka wrote: 
>
>>1992 called, and it wants its data transfer problem back.
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>Yikes.
>
>I've done some research, and Agent still has the goofy .COD conversion
>files right up to the present version, and no actual direct Unicode
>support that I could find. I  never had a need to use it, so I never
>checked. There's all sorts of options to use, or allow use of UTF-8, in
>"languages," but it's broken. So it looks like no amount of upgrading
>will fix Forte's sorry kludge of Unicode "support."
>
>So even when it converts the Base64 properly to UTF-8, as version 3.3 and
>7.0 do, Agent's internal code page conversion is going to read the UTF-8
>and turn it into "???????????" because it doesn't match some arbitrary
>256 character code page. Which is exactly what happened in my case.
>
>This happens even if I choose UTF-8 as my "default charset" (Note: UTF-8
>is not a character set, that's what the Universal Character Set is). Even
>if I tell it to send messages in UTF-8, or "allow" UTF-8, Agent has it's
>own panoply of code pages from the 1980's, and diligently and efficiently
>breaks Unicode by ignoring anything that doesn't match the particular
>single page you've chosen to load. It doesn't ship with a real UTF-8
>option, near as I can tell. It lets you use UTF-8, but only insofar that
>you can convert it to a code page from the early eighties. If you look in
>the .COD files, it's a one byte code page to three byte Unicode
>conversion table.
>
>And yes, technically this means I was, in the strictest sense, wrong to
>call UTF-8 a "code page," as there is a distinction to be made between
>*any* UCS character encoding scheme and this sort of rank barbarism. 
>
>tl;dr:
>
> "1983 called; it wants it's international character display issues back.
>It makes the previous 1992 phone call seem timely and topical."
>
>Please, someone tell me I'm wrong about this. I can't believe they
>haven't fixed this by now. Is it really that hard to implement Unicode?
>
>P.S.: I pulled your post in Thunderbird, Andrew, and it had no problems
>whatsoever with it. Standards compliance FTW.
>
>-- 
>Zag
>
>No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
>spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

Er, please read my latest posting in the original thread from which
this one got spawned by you. Contamination of these newsgroups by
things other that plain-text has a rather unsavory history. 

John Lewis