On Sep 16, 2008, at 11:21 PM, Michael Selig wrote:

> Using Ruby SHOULD be making our lives easier, not harder. Other  
> languages like Python have taken an easier route to m17n - represent  
> all strings internally as unicode codepoints. Then there should  
> never be a need to check encoding compatibility, right? I am not  
> saying that this is a perfect solution either, by the way. But  
> having to work around this "Encoding Compatibility Error" all the  
> time is just a pain for apps which need to work in different  
> countries with different locales. Unfortunately it is leading me  
> towards the path of having to transcode everything to UTF-8, even  
> though in 99% of cases all the data IS going to be compatible and be  
> in the user's locale.

I believe Matz has said in the past that transcoding is what they are  
trying to avoid in general.  You can loose data that way and thus the  
core team doesn't favor it.  (I hope I got that right.  It's from  
memory, so don't blame me for putting words in Matz's mouth.)

Besides, I'm not sure if it's the characters I have tried or just that  
Ruby's transcoding still needs work, but I've tried converting some  
Shift_JIS to UTF-8 that it just couldn't handle.  We would have to  
have a better conversion rate to support a strategy like this.

James Edward Gray II