Hi all,
According to http://wiki.winehq.org/Developers-Hints on the "http://wiki.winehq.org/Developers-Hints", AFAICT the resource files should generally - use the default Windows codepage for the specified language or - use UTF-8 surround with "#pragma code_page(65001)" at the top of the file and "#pragma code_page(default)" at the bottom
Which of the encoding is preferred? UTF-8 ?
Furthermore, - the "65001" should probably be replaced by "utf8" (I checked in tools/wrc/parser.l:373) [ which would be better IMNSHO in new/updated resource file] - the link to the list of codepages is broken; it should be http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd317756(VS.85).aspx
Frédéric
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Frédéric Delanoy wrote: [...]
Furthermore,
- the "65001" should probably be replaced by "utf8" (I checked in
tools/wrc/parser.l:373) [ which would be better IMNSHO in new/updated resource file]
Do the Windows/Mingw resource compilers support utf8 there?
"Francois Gouget" fgouget@free.fr wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Frédéric Delanoy wrote: [...]
Furthermore,
- the "65001" should probably be replaced by "utf8" (I checked in
tools/wrc/parser.l:373) [ which would be better IMNSHO in new/updated resource file]
Do the Windows/Mingw resource compilers support utf8 there?
No, they don't.
Francois Gouget fgouget@free.fr writes:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Frédéric Delanoy wrote: [...]
Furthermore,
- the "65001" should probably be replaced by "utf8" (I checked in
tools/wrc/parser.l:373) [ which would be better IMNSHO in new/updated resource file]
Do the Windows/Mingw resource compilers support utf8 there?
No, that's why using 65001 is preferable.