Re: Emacs unicode merge changes to Gnus

[Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>]

Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc> writes:
>>> What about (1) using the coding: cookie, (2) change the coding system
>>> used to be utf-8 if possible (no binary), and utf-8-emacs otherwise.
>>>
>>> That should more or less work correctly except when people have binary
>>> junk, and that should be very rare (right...?).
>>>
>>> I guess it won't work for some other cases, like someone with CJK text
>>> who switches from Emacs 23 to Emacs 21, but ...
>
> Emacs 23 still has `emacs-mule' as coding system.  Does it allow to
> encode everything?  If so, we might use `emacs-mule' instead of
> `utf-8-emacs'.  If not, we could recommend setting
> `mm-auto-save-coding-system' to `emacs-mule' for those who want to use
> Gnus in Emacs 23 and Emacs 21/22.

Emacs 23 still supports emacs-mule (and AFAIK, it encodes "everything"),
though in general I think it's better to move away from it when possible
(utf-8 and utf-8-emacs are readable by other programs in non-binary
cases, and by older versions in "many" cases).

Regardless of what happens, it seems to me that Gnus should be writing
the cookie, which makes future upgrades easier, and makes the file more
self-describing.


So there are really three independent questions (patch hunks :-):

  1) Should gnus write the cookie?   (obviously yes, I think)

  2) Should Gnus stop forcing the coding system when it reads the file?
     (i.e., should Gnus let coding: do its job)

  3) Should Gnus switch to utf-8-emacs as the default coding system for
     writing files?


It seems like the safest thing, if you're worried about "back switchers"
(as well as users of older Emacs versions using CVS Gnus) is to apply
hunks (1) and (2) but not (3); that should at least set things up for an
easier switch to utf-8 in the future when it's deemed more acceptable.

-Miles

-- 
Sabbath, n. A weekly festival having its origin in the fact that God made the
world in six days and was arrested on the seventh.