From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Different (buffer-file-)coding-systems for different regions of one buffer? (for Rmail MIME) Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 17:20:52 +0900 Organization: The XEmacs Project Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <87he7eduzf.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <200305211953.h4LJr9Iq000699@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200305212229.h4LMTFKo001277@rum.cs.yale.edu> <878yszvean.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87wughogc8.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87brxql1vt.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87isrwifub.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1054196490 441 80.91.224.249 (29 May 2003 08:21:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 08:21:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Thu May 29 10:21:28 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 19LIfA-00006q-00 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:21:28 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19LItk-0001fV-00 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:36:32 +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 19LIgg-0005zj-QL for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Thu, 29 May 2003 04:23:02 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19LIgC-0005fM-7g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 May 2003 04:22:32 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19LIg5-0005bl-4z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 May 2003 04:22:25 -0400 Original-Received: from tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.98.109]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19LIen-0003t2-Bk; Thu, 29 May 2003 04:21:05 -0400 Original-Received: from steve by tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19LIeb-00077Q-00; Thu, 29 May 2003 17:20:53 +0900 Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Wed, 28 May 2003 19:57:33 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1001 (Gnus v5.10.1) XEmacs/21.5 (carrot, linux) Original-cc: stktrc@yahoo.com Original-cc: "Stephen J. Turnbull" 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:14411 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:14411 >>>>> "rms" == Richard Stallman writes: Perhaps not. The thread started with a proposal for a coding system that would present Rmail with an already decoded buffer, so that the process of dealing with multiple coding systems and the like would be transparent to Rmail. And I've been assuming that. rms> I thought that idea had been pretty much proved to be rms> unusable, and then someone (was it you?) brought up the rms> alternative of using two buffers. So I have been talking rms> about how to do that. Right, I see that now. I think both approaches have merits. I suspect that you will discover (as Kyle and larsi apparently did) that a full-fledged MIME implementation is much cleaner if you use a separate presentation buffer. But for the minimal usage (converting text/plain; charset=FOO to Mule code, and displaying text attachments like patches inline), you don't need it. -- Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.