From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/32373 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dave Love Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: \201 irritation! :-) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 00:32:44 +0100 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: <200009082332.AAA16822@djlvig.dl.ac.uk> References: <00Aug28.151432edt.115218@gateway.intersys.com> <00Aug28.173634edt.115213@gateway.intersys.com> <200009051429.PAA09826@djlvig.dl.ac.uk> <00Sep5.121949edt.115219@gateway.intersys.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035168653 19365 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 02:50:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 02:50:53 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from fisher.math.uh.edu (fisher.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.35]) by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7AEBD051E for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 19:37:54 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by fisher.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAC09017; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 18:33:31 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Fri, 08 Sep 2000 18:32:30 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from mailhost.sclp.com (postfix@66-209.196.61.interliant.com [209.196.61.66] (may be forged)) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA10135 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 18:32:20 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from djlvig.dl.ac.uk (djlvig.dl.ac.uk [148.79.112.146]) by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56AF9D051E for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 19:32:45 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: (from fx@localhost) by djlvig.dl.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.5) id AAA16822; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 00:32:44 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: djlvig.dl.ac.uk: fx set sender to d.love@dl.ac.uk using -f Original-To: ding@gnus.org User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/21.0.90 Original-Lines: 60 Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:32373 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:32373 It's probably not really worth replying to Proof by Disingenuous Non Sequitur per textbooks on Generalized Logic, but... >>>>> "Rat" == Stainless Steel Rat writes: Rat> I have yet to hear of any \201 bugs in any XEmacs built with Rat> MULE, Try paying more attention. Rat> and an XEmacs built without MULE cannot exhibit these bugs. Presumably there's some problem with XEmacs/Mule that requires doing that. A unibyte Emacs doesn't generate emacs-mule coded text unless there's a broken Mule-aware application running in it. Anyone stating otherwise should produce an evaluation in Emacs to back that up. Rat> Nothing about XEmacs throwing \201 bugs in gnu.emacs.gnus, Rat> nothing about \201 that I can recall in comp.emacs.xemacs. Yes, people with a clue know that coding conversion errors in XEmacs normally will result in ISO 2022 escapes -- as reported here -- or just trashed non-ASCII characters. There is no difference in principle. The vast majority of problems with Gnus are due to people mistakenly running TM and possibly similar broken applications, as is usually verifiable from their headers. We see precious few bug reports otherwise. XEmacs users see \201 and other junk in Gnus for various reasons, as in this thread. Rat> If that were true then there would be no appearance of \201. Rat> The fact that it did appear is proof that there are bugs in the Rat> FSF Emacs implementation of MULE, It's difficult to see how frobbing Gnus' coding conversion would fix things if that wasn't rubbish. It's there in the development history. Genuine coding conversion bugs occur occasionally in quite obscure circumstances and are fixed quickly, usually by Handa-san as they are reported. The record of bug reports and change logs shows so. Rat> and I will continue to offer XEmacs as a solution to those bugs Rat> until such time as they are fixed. Do report on a single unfixed coding conversion bug in Emacs itself. XEmacs/Mule isn't even available on the most widespread platform and certainly has major known outstanding bugs which I've no wish to bash. Hrvoje has written eloquently on the topic. Rat> And if your attitude accurately reflects that of the FSF Rat> then you'd better get used to me doing so, because while free Rat> software is important, software that works correctly is more Rat> important. Lying about things isn't going to make any software work better. I'm baffled by the implication that XEmacs isn't free and anyone clueful knows it has advantages over Emacs _and vice versa_. As far as I know, the attitude of the XEmacs maintainers is similar to that of the Emacs maintainers -- soliciting reports of bugs and fixing them; otherwise they make improvements, like importing Emacs Mule code and techniques, so I suppose XEmacs is getting worse in Pieri's terms. They don't appear to agree with him.