what's people's experience with using BRL with something else than ISO-8859-1?
I'd be particularly interested in UTF-8 output (e.g. write out XML as response).
o Must Tomcat's Java be started with some file.encoding property (how)?
o Must some flag be set in BRL?
o How to control output conversion using KRL instead of BRL?
I depicted my own experience here on 4th of December 2003 (see below).
Additionally, I found out that BRL/Tomcat seems to react on
[(brl-content-type! brl-context "text/html; charset=UTF-8")]
in the sense that literal 8859-1 Umlauts in the source get converted to
UTF-8 on output by the above statement, while KRL/Tomcat doesn't seem to react upon
[(response-header "Content-Type" "text/html; charset=UTF-8")] or
(response-content-type "text/html; charset=UTF-8")
in the sense that characters are output literally as ISO-8859-1.
BRL's behaviour seems nicer to me at a first glance.
[Content-Length is still broken.]
>On a Linux box, I found out that I can use e.g.
>(brl-content-type! brl-context "text/html; charset=utf-8")
>to have *output* converted to UTF-8 (probably by Tomcat), but
>my .brl source files must be written using ISO-8859-1!
>Otherwise, the Umlauts will be converted twice, resulting in
>4-5 bytes for
>each *and* a broken Content-Length indication.
>BTW, when using "charset=utf-8" on ISO-8859-1 source,
>Content-Length is broken
>(we had that thread recently). More precisely, too small by as
>many bytes as
>utf-8 is longer than iso-8859-1.
>Who is converting the Java string produced by brl/Scheme to
>UTF-8 bytes? BRL?
From: Bruce Lewis <brlewis@us...> - 2004-03-25 19:18:52
Kawa's CVS version has some kind of encoding support. My BRL has
nothing at this point. Hopefully in a release sometime this year.
"Notwithstanding fervent argument that patent protection is essential
for the growth of the software industry, commentators have noted
that `this industry is growing by leaps and bounds without it.'"
-- US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, March 3, 1981.