From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eli Zaretskii" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Different (buffer-file-)coding-systems for different regions of one buffer? (for Rmail MIME) Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 20:30:19 +0300 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <2561-Mon26May2003203019+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> References: <878yszvean.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87wughogc8.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87brxql1vt.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1053970769 14067 80.91.224.249 (26 May 2003 17:39:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 17:39:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Mon May 26 19:39:28 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19KLwW-0003el-00 for ; Mon, 26 May 2003 19:39:28 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19KM9p-00068I-00 for ; Mon, 26 May 2003 19:53:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19KLwq-00040g-Ha for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Mon, 26 May 2003 13:39:48 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19KLvV-0002Rx-2Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 May 2003 13:38:25 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19KLvR-0002MF-8K for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 May 2003 13:38:22 -0400 Original-Received: from gnuftp.gnu.org ([199.232.41.6]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19KLv9-00023q-Gy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 May 2003 13:38:03 -0400 Original-Received: from aragorn.inter.net.il ([192.114.186.23]) by gnuftp.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19KLnZ-00068v-8T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 May 2003 13:30:13 -0400 Original-Received: from zaretsky (tony08-234-250.inter.net.il [80.230.234.250] (may be forged)) by aragorn.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id ARX13007; Mon, 26 May 2003 20:29:31 +0300 (IDT) Original-To: stephen@xemacs.org X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9 In-reply-to: <87brxql1vt.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> (stephen@xemacs.org) Original-cc: stktrc@yahoo.com X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:14289 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:14289 > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" > Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 14:20:54 +0900 > > rms> It is important to have a way to edit the text that is > rms> displayed. It is desirable but not very important to > rms> preserve the first charset designation. > > That's assuming that it is text. This implementation would make > corruption of attached binaries likely and signed messages somewhat > likely Aren't attachments clearly marked in the message as being such? Can't Emacs look for those markers (the part delimiters in a multi-part message) and refrain from decoding binary data while decoding text? > Kai Grossjohann's answer to this (rename the presentation buffer to > RMAIL, users rarely will want to see the full buffer, so it can be > renamed to a "hidden" buffer name) is correct as far as I can tell > from my own experience, convenient for the user, and easily > implemented. I see one significant disadvantage of this design: it will require thorough rewrite of many parts in RMAIL, since the code as it is now assumes a single buffer, narrowed as required. I don't have enough information and experience to judge whether this is a serious disadvantage, though.