From Wikitech-l:
Erik wrote:
If UTF-8 has enough advantages (and many people seem to think it does), then telling 2% of the userbase that their browser is outdated and corrupts pages when editing seems acceptable.
The pages will only get corrupted by their browsers /if/ we switch to UTF-8! So why lock out 2% of our user base just to make it a bit easier to have non-Latin scripts on a Latin-based language wiki? [NOTE: I agree that UTF-8 makes sense on meta though; there the advantages /do/ outweigh the benefits.] But if those 2% can be accommodated as is and we can have UTF-8, then great. Otherwise my idea of having a separate UTF-8-friendly edit window for language codes would solve the language link problem (which, IMO, is the only issue that has real merit here).
Sorry, but as a long-time Linux desktop user I get a bit pissed whenever somebody brings up the "only x%" arguments. It is often used as an excuse to prevent me from using certain websites. When I see "You need to upgrade your browser" I leave and never come back. We needn't repeat the "only x%" type of attitude here.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree