Maurice Kinal  wrote:
> -={ Saturday, 27 February 2016, 03:52:39 +1100 }=-
> 
> Hey Tony!
> 
>  TL> But when sis it become commonplace?
> 
> It depends on who you talk to.  Speaking for myself I only recently started 
> using it but was aware of utf-8 way back when.  I really never had a use for
it 
> nor any of the 8-bit IBM ones, especially not CP437, that were all the rage 
> around that time.  ASCII still gets the major airtime up to and including 
> today.

I was using IBM characters a lot in the late 80s, early 90s.  My usage of
UTF-8 was more just adapting to the gradual movement in general towards it.
 I can't put a date on it, but for a number of years now.
> 
>  TL> I'm sure it was _much_ later.
> 
> For the Microsoft crowd for sure although there was talk for many, many, many

> years the latest being that they recommend using utf-8 over everything else 
> including utf-16.
> 
>  TL> I was first nodelisted in the middle of 1992
> 
> Your name does look familiar.  Anyhow it is in the nodelist and I now have a 
> source for the daily one should there ever be a need in the future.  Also I
now 
> have you down as LANG=en_AU.utf8 and TZ=Australia/Victoria in the database I 
> use for Fidonet messaging.  Looks good from this angle including the switches

> DST  ST.

That information all looks good.  :). Yes, I was very active on Fidonet and
several othernets in the 1990s.
> 
>  TL> Yeah, Microsoft did lead the world up the gareden path regularly.
> 
> There is an understatement if I ever saw one before.  ;-)

LOL
> 
>  TL> I rest my case on vim. :)
> 
> Sure.  I believe the latest chatter in this echo revolved around vi vs.
emacs.  
> Given that vim is the flavour of vi most used since at least the late 1990's,

> then by default vim wins over all things considered.  I am not sure where you

> come down on that particular controversy.

I've never really taken sides on that issue. :). If I had to pick one, it
would be vim, because I've had more to do with it than emacs.
> 
>
--- SBBSecho 2.27-Linux