From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/38479 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dave Love Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Gnus coming with Emacs 21pre-release: iso-8859-{1,15} Date: 01 Sep 2001 17:30:19 +0100 Sender: Dave Love Message-ID: References: <7458-Fri27Jul2001114518+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035174335 22649 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 04:25:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 04:25:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: keichwa@gmx.net, emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org, ding@gnus.org Return-Path: Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 17919 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2001 16:30:26 -0000 Original-Received: from djlvig.dl.ac.uk (148.79.112.146) by gnus.org with SMTP; 1 Sep 2001 16:30:26 -0000 Original-Received: from fx by djlvig.dl.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 15dDf1-0003R9-00; Sat, 01 Sep 2001 17:30:19 +0100 Original-To: Eli Zaretskii User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.0.106 Original-Lines: 54 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:38479 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:38479 >>>>> "EZ" == Eli Zaretskii writes: EZ> This should IMHO be optional at this time, This should _just work_. In general. [As far as I remember, utf-8 support in MUAs is mandated by IETF.] EZ> since Unicode support in the stock Emacs 21 distribution (without EZ> add-ons such as Mule-UCS) is limited and incomplete. It can't even be an option until the additions and changes are available for users to try. If it's so bad, they can either avoid using the support or fix it. It works for my purposes, and I'd like it to be available for others. There is no consistent rationale for refusing to base things on the current Unicode support. KOI support is incomplete (like at least most of the codepage.el coding systems); why is that offered? mac-roman depends on the base Unicode support (in the same way that Latin-8 and -9 probably should have done if they didn't precede mule-unicode); what about that? Anyhow, what editor and mailer _should_ people use with unlimited and complete Unicode support? EZ> For starters, AFAIK, Emacs cannot encode 8859-15 characters as EZ> UTF-8 (see the commentary in utf-8.el) unless those characters EZ> came from a UTF-8 encoded source to begin with, and thus are EZ> stored in the buffer as mule-unicode-NNNN characters. This is at best confused. 8859-15 is mostly the same as 8859-1, and the characters at issue will be decoded into the Mule charset `latin-iso8859-1'. Anyhow, It's pretty trivial to change the mule-utf-8 coding system to encode arbitrary Emacs characters with the aid of a translation table. It's even more trivial to unify on decoding, as I've said before. The 8859-15 coding system could use mule-unicode. EZ> (Perhaps Gnus can do such conversions with its own code; but I'm EZ> talking about core Emacs functionality here.) Gnus could bundle my code to do 8859/unicode unification and handle the complete set of GNUish charsets, but that wouldn't make sense in the absence of Emacs 21.1 and the facility should be available generally. Also, I don't want to waste effort supporting this in the face of a maintainer campaign against the basic features it needs, and it sounds as though it would be chucked out when Gnus was next reintegrated. EZ> This is not the kind of support that we could IMHO offer users as EZ> the default. Unifying 8859 on encoding to utf-8 is exactly the kind of support that should be default, as the users want.