Editing exportet registry files

Editing exportet registry files

[Markus Gritsch]

Hi,

when I export part of the registry on MS Windows to a .reg file, it is a 
Unicode file (little-endian) encoded with BOM (FF FE) as the first 
bytes.  Is it possible to edit such a file with Emacs?

Kind regards,
Markus

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Stefan Monnier]

> when I export part of the registry on MS Windows to a .reg file, it is
> a Unicode file (little-endian) encoded with BOM (FF FE) as the first bytes.

You mean, it's utf-16-le

> Is it possible to edit such a file with Emacs?

Yes,


        Stefan

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[gritsch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 588 bytes --]

Quoting Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>:

> > when I export part of the registry on MS Windows to a .reg file, it is
> > a Unicode file (little-endian) encoded with BOM (FF FE) as the first
> bytes.
> 
> You mean, it's utf-16-le
> 
> > Is it possible to edit such a file with Emacs?
> 
> Yes,

Can you give me any advice how to achive this?  When I load such a file it is
displayed like in the attached screen shot.

Thank you in advance,
Markus


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

[-- Attachment #2: screen.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 5478 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 142 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Miles Bader]

>> You mean, it's utf-16-le
>
> Can you give me any advice how to achive this?  When I load such a file it is
> displayed like in the attached screen shot.

   C-u C-m c utf-16-le RET C-x C-f FILENAME RET

-Miles
-- 
"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that
 you do it."  Mahatma Gandhi

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/1/05, gritsch@iue.tuwien.ac.at <gritsch@iue.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:

> Can you give me any advice how to achive this?

Try

  C-x RET c utf-16-le RET

(that's `universal-coding-system-argument'), then:

C-x C-f yourfile RET

and you should be able to edit the file.

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[gritsch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 588 bytes --]

Quoting Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>:

> > when I export part of the registry on MS Windows to a .reg file, it is
> > a Unicode file (little-endian) encoded with BOM (FF FE) as the first
> bytes.
> 
> You mean, it's utf-16-le
> 
> > Is it possible to edit such a file with Emacs?
> 
> Yes,

Can you give me any advice how to achive this?  When I load such a file it is
displayed like in the attached screen shot.

Thank you in advance,
Markus


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

[-- Attachment #2: screen.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 5478 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 142 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

RE: Editing exportet registry files

[Dhruva Krishnamurthy (RBIN/EDI3) *]

Hello,

> Can you give me any advice how to achive this?  When I load 
> such a file it is
> displayed like in the attached screen shot.

1. Open the file in Emacs (normal file open).
2. Use the following key strokes: C-x Ret r
3. Type utf-16le at the prompt
4. Accept the file reverting...

You can then see a more meaningful file which you can edit like any
other file in Emacs.

With best regards,
dk

RE: Editing exportet registry files

[gritsch]

Thank you all very much for your help.  With the given information and the Emacs
ducumentation I have now added the following lines to my .emacs file, which
makes editing exportet registry files less painfull:

(setq file-coding-system-alist
      (append '(("\\.reg\\'" . utf-16le-with-signature))
              file-coding-system-alist))

Kind regards,
Markus



Quoting "Dhruva Krishnamurthy (RBIN/EDI3) *"
<Dhruva.Krishnamurthy@in.bosch.com>:

> Hello,
> 
> > Can you give me any advice how to achive this?  When I load 
> > such a file it is
> > displayed like in the attached screen shot.
> 
> 1. Open the file in Emacs (normal file open).
> 2. Use the following key strokes: C-x Ret r
> 3. Type utf-16le at the prompt
> 4. Accept the file reverting...
> 
> You can then see a more meaningful file which you can edit like any
> other file in Emacs.
> 
> With best regards,
> dk


Quoting Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>:

> On 7/1/05, gritsch@iue.tuwien.ac.at <gritsch@iue.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
> 
> > Can you give me any advice how to achive this?
> 
> Try
> 
>   C-x RET c utf-16-le RET
> 
> (that's `universal-coding-system-argument'), then:
> 
> C-x C-f yourfile RET
> 
> and you should be able to edit the file.
> 
> -- 
>                     /L/e/k/t/u


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Mathias Dahl]

gritsch@iue.tuwien.ac.at writes:

> Thank you all very much for your help.  With the given information and the Emacs
> ducumentation I have now added the following lines to my .emacs file, which
> makes editing exportet registry files less painfull:
>
> (setq file-coding-system-alist
>       (append '(("\\.reg\\'" . utf-16le-with-signature))
>               file-coding-system-alist))
>

Great! I have wondered how to do this and have been too lazy to find
out myself... :)

A comment, and I really do not want to troll here:

Why cannot Emacs handle this automatically? I mean, it already handles
LF vs CR + LF issues when I open text files encoded using either
format. Are there any drawbacks trying to "guess" more than what is
already done?

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/1/05, Mathias Dahl <brakjoller@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why cannot Emacs handle this automatically?

See `(emacs)Recognize Coding' on the Emacs manual. Basically, there's
no universal ordering of coding systems that would satisfy every
user's needs, so Emacs assumes a default order according to your
language environment, and you can always alter that ordering to match
your specific requirements.

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[David Kastrup]

Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> On 7/1/05, gritsch@iue.tuwien.ac.at <gritsch@iue.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>
>> Can you give me any advice how to achive this?
>
> Try
>
>   C-x RET c utf-16-le RET
>
> (that's `universal-coding-system-argument'), then:
>
> C-x C-f yourfile RET
>
> and you should be able to edit the file.

Shouldn't the utf-x files with signature be quite in front of the list
of detected coding systems?  I mean, that's what the signature is good
for in the first place, right?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/1/05, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:

> Shouldn't the utf-x files with signature be quite in front of the list
> of detected coding systems?  I mean, that's what the signature is good
> for in the first place, right?

Well, yeah, but FF and FE *are* valid characters in many encodings.
Latin encodings for most european language environments are going to
be higher up the priority list, for example. It makes no sense putting
utf-* encodings before the others unless you know beforehand that
you're going to deal with a lot of these files.

And there's an UTF-8 language environment, after all, for people who
routinely deals with utf-8 data. Are there environments (operating
systems, language environments, whatever) where utf-16 is the norm?

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Gaëtan LEURENT]

Juanma Barranquero wrote on 01 Jul 2005 20:01:14 +0200:

>> Shouldn't the utf-x files with signature be quite in front of the list
>> of detected coding systems?  I mean, that's what the signature is good
>> for in the first place, right?
>
> Well, yeah, but FF and FE *are* valid characters in many encodings.
> Latin encodings for most european language environments are going to
> be higher up the priority list, for example.

Well, a Latin-1 file is quite unlikely to begin with « þÿ » or « ÿþ ».

> Are there environments (operating systems, language environments,
> whatever) where utf-16 is the norm?

I think it's the case on MS Windows.

-- 
Gaëtan LEURENT

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Jason Rumney]

Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> Well, yeah, but FF and FE *are* valid characters in many encodings.

How common is it to have FF FE or FE FF as the first two characters in
text in any other encoding? Is it acceptable for Emacs to ignore the
most common case where those two bytes will appear in sequence as the
first two bytes of a file, because of some theoretical worry that it
might break a hypothetical case that I suspect will only exist in real
life if someone deliberately sets out to break auto-detection.

> Latin encodings for most european language environments are going to
> be higher up the priority list, for example. It makes no sense putting
> utf-* encodings before the others unless you know beforehand that
> you're going to deal with a lot of these files.

Nonsense. It is very unlikely that UTF-16-LE-WITH-SIGNATURE,
UTF-16-BE-WITH-SIGNATURE, or even UTF-8 will falsely match any Latin
(or cyrillic or probably Asian) encoding. They should be at the front
of the list.

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/1/05, Gaëtan LEURENT <gaetan.leurent@ens.fr> wrote:

> Well, a Latin-1 file is quite unlikely to begin with «þÿ» or «ÿþ».

Sure. But "quite unlikely" is not "imposible".

> I think it's the case on MS Windows.

Well, I use MS Windows and most of my files are ASCII, Latin-1,
Latin-9, a few UTF-8. Other than the .REG ones, I'm not aware of any
files that I use frequently (system files or other) which are encoded
as UTF-16.

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/2/05, Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org> wrote:
> Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> How common is it to have FF FE or FE FF as the first two characters in
> text in any other encoding?

Pretty uncommon. I haven't said otherwise. I'm just pointing out what
I suppose is the original reason to not putting the utf-16 encodings
higher up on the list.

> because of some theoretical worry that it
> might break a hypothetical case that I suspect will only exist in real
> life if someone deliberately sets out to break auto-detection.

I've not checked other encodings. Did you? Are you really sure that
all other frequently used 8-bit encodings put uncommon characters for
0xFF and 0xFE? Because the fact that they aren't ASCII doesn't mean
that they are infrequent in the target language.

> Nonsense. It is very unlikely that UTF-16-LE-WITH-SIGNATURE,
> UTF-16-BE-WITH-SIGNATURE, or even UTF-8 will falsely match any Latin
> (or cyrillic or probably Asian) encoding.

I lack the confidence that you apparently have. I suppose you're
better informed than me (I'm not being facetious). So just change it,
or propose it to be changed. (And perhaps it'd be wise to hear what
Handa-san thinks about it.)

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Andreas Schwab]

Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> I've not checked other encodings. Did you? Are you really sure that
> all other frequently used 8-bit encodings put uncommon characters for
> 0xFF and 0xFE? Because the fact that they aren't ASCII doesn't mean
> that they are infrequent in the target language.

Among the 8-bit encodings supported by glibc there are IMHO no encodings
which have a significant probability of being misdetected as UTF-16.  They
either don't define both code points, or define them to characters that
are very unlikely to occur next to each other, let alone at the start of a
file.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/2/05, Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> wrote:
> Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> Among the 8-bit encodings supported by glibc there are IMHO no encodings
> which have a significant probability of being misdetected as UTF-16.

Well, if you're right that would settle the issue, wouldn't it?
Propose it changed and let people opine.

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/1/05, gritsch@iue.tuwien.ac.at <gritsch@iue.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:

> With the given information and the Emacs
> ducumentation I have now added the following lines to my .emacs file, which
> makes editing exportet registry files less painfull:
> 
> (setq file-coding-system-alist
>       (append '(("\\.reg\\'" . utf-16le-with-signature))
>               file-coding-system-alist))

FYI, re-reading the docs it seems the "right" way would be:

  (modify-coding-system-alist 'file "\\.reg\\'" 'utf-16le-with-signature)

which, according to "(emacs)Recognize Coding", is the recommended
method to modify the *-coding-system-alist variables.

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/2/05, Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> wrote:

> which, according to "(emacs)Recognize Coding"

BTW, that same node contains this info:

     If Emacs recognizes the encoding of a file incorrectly, you can
  reread the file using the correct coding system by typing `C-x <RET> c
  CODING-SYSTEM <RET> M-x revert-buffer <RET>'.

Shouldn't it recommend instead `C-x <RET> r CODING-SYSTEM <RET>',
i.e., `revert-buffer-with-coding-system'?

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Juanma Barranquero]

Is that to be expected somehow?

emacs -Q

M-x ielm <RET>
ELISP> (prefer-coding-system 'utf-16le-with-signature)
(mule-utf-16le-with-signature-dos . mule-utf-16le-with-signature-unix)

ELISP> (list-coding-systems)
*** Eval error ***  Cannot open load file: mule-diag
ELISP> 

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Gaëtan LEURENT]

Jason Rumney wrote on 02 Jul 2005 00:12:53 +0200:

> Nonsense. It is very unlikely that UTF-16-LE-WITH-SIGNATURE,
> UTF-16-BE-WITH-SIGNATURE, or even UTF-8 will falsely match any Latin
> (or cyrillic or probably Asian) encoding. They should be at the front
> of the list.

For UTF-16 with signature, I agree, but UTF-8 could sometimes match a
Latin-1 file. For instance, "4×½=2" encoded in Latin-1 is valid as a
UTF-8 string. A friend of mine suggested "Try our new exclusive WAZA®
for just $0.02!" which is even meaningful in both cases.

-- 
Gaëtan LEURENT

Coding system priority (was: Editing exportet registry files)

[Gaëtan LEURENT]

David Kastrup wrote on 01 Jul 2005 19:45:32 +0200:

> Shouldn't the utf-x files with signature be quite in front of the list
> of detected coding systems?  I mean, that's what the signature is good
> for in the first place, right?

By the way, what is the correct method for a user to put
utf-16-le-with-signature on top of the list? prefer-coding-system has
some bad side effects (it changes I/O coding system), but the docstring
of coding-category-list says « Don't modify this variable directly, but
use `set-coding-priority'. ».

-- 
Gaëtan LEURENT

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Jason Rumney]

gaetan.leurent@ens.fr (Gaëtan LEURENT) writes:

> For UTF-16 with signature, I agree, but UTF-8 could sometimes match a
> Latin-1 file. For instance, "4×½=2" encoded in Latin-1 is valid as a
> UTF-8 string. A friend of mine suggested "Try our new exclusive WAZA®
> for just $0.02!" which is even meaningful in both cases.

Coming up with isolated theoretical problem cases should not stop us
from doing what is correct in the other 99% of cases.

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[David Kastrup]

Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org> writes:

> gaetan.leurent@ens.fr (Gaëtan LEURENT) writes:
>
>> For UTF-16 with signature, I agree, but UTF-8 could sometimes match
>> a Latin-1 file. For instance, "4×½=2" encoded in Latin-1 is valid
>> as a UTF-8 string. A friend of mine suggested "Try our new
>> exclusive WAZA® for just $0.02!" which is even meaningful in both
>> cases.
>
> Coming up with isolated theoretical problem cases should not stop us
> from doing what is correct in the other 99% of cases.

I think Gaëtan is arguing that we should not prefer UTF-8 in a Latin-1
locale.  This is pretty much a red herring: we were discussing the
UTF-16-with-signature encodings: there is no necessity whatsoever to
group their priority with UTF-8.

I agree that in a Latin-1 locale, Latin-1 should be preferred over
UTF-8 and vice versa as long as the buffers can be interpreted as
being valid in both encodings.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Kaloian Doganov]

> For UTF-16 with signature, I agree, but UTF-8 could sometimes match a
> Latin-1 file.

I would like to stress that. Latin-1 (ISO-8859-1) is a superset of
US-ASCII. The first 128 characters are basically US-ASCII. On the other
hand, although UTF-8 is a variable length encoding, it is designed to
match US-ASCII in it's first 128 characters (Unicode range U+0000 to
U+007F). These characters are encoded as single bytes in UTF-8.

So, every single US-ASCII file out there is a valid UTF-8 file. This is
one of the features of UTF-8.

And for historical reasons, every US-ASCII file is a valid Latin-1 file.


-- 
Поздрави,
Калоян Доганов,
Сдружение "Свободен софтуер".
___________________________________________________________
Ако не отговарям на писмата Ви: http://6lyokavitza.org/mail

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Juanma Barranquero]

Am I the only one who gets this error?

> emacs -Q
> 
> M-x ielm <RET>
> ELISP> (prefer-coding-system 'utf-16le-with-signature)
> (mule-utf-16le-with-signature-dos . mule-utf-16le-with-signature-unix)
> 
> ELISP> (list-coding-systems)
> *** Eval error ***  Cannot open load file: mule-diag
> ELISP>

After I use `prefer-coding-system' and select an utf-*-with-signature,
Emacs becomes unusable. I must kill it forcefully.

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Kenichi Handa]

In article <f7ccd24b050706172858123cbe@mail.gmail.com>, Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> Am I the only one who gets this error?
>>  emacs -Q
>>  
>>  M-x ielm <RET>
ELISP>  (prefer-coding-system 'utf-16le-with-signature)
>>  (mule-utf-16le-with-signature-dos . mule-utf-16le-with-signature-unix)
>>  
ELISP>  (list-coding-systems)
>>  *** Eval error ***  Cannot open load file: mule-diag
ELISP> 

This is because prefer-coding-system sets also
default-file-name-coding-system.  It seems that any attempt
to set it (and keyboard-coding-system) to ascii-incompatible
coding system should be avoided.  So, I've just installed
these changes.

2005-07-07  Kenichi Handa  <handa@m17n.org>

	* international/mule.el (make-coding-system): Describe
	`ascii-incompatible' property in the docstring.
	(set-file-name-coding-system): Signal an error if coding-system is
	ascii-incompatible.
	(set-keyboard-coding-system): Likewise.

	* international/mule-cmds.el (set-default-coding-systems): Don't
	set default-file-name-coding-system and
	default-keyboard-coding-system if coding-system is
	ASCII-incompatible.

	* international/utf-16.el: Declare that all UTF-16-based coding
	systems ASCII-incompatible.

---
Kenichi Handa
handa@m17n.org

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/7/05, Kenichi Handa <handa@m17n.org> wrote:

> This is because prefer-coding-system sets also
> default-file-name-coding-system.  It seems that any attempt
> to set it (and keyboard-coding-system) to ascii-incompatible
> coding system should be avoided.  So, I've just installed
> these changes.

It works now. Thanks.

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/7/05, Kenichi Handa <handa@m17n.org> wrote:

> This is because prefer-coding-system sets also
> default-file-name-coding-system.

Unfortunately, setting

  (prefer-coding-system 'utf-16le-with-signature)

into .emacs is still not a viable option. I'm getting a lot of trouble
out of saveplace.el, and vc-diff returns gibberish.

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Kenichi Handa]

In article <f7ccd24b05070702551aa68a1d@mail.gmail.com>, Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> On 7/7/05, Kenichi Handa <handa@m17n.org> wrote:
>>  This is because prefer-coding-system sets also
>>  default-file-name-coding-system.

> Unfortunately, setting

>   (prefer-coding-system 'utf-16le-with-signature)

> into .emacs is still not a viable option. I'm getting a lot of trouble
> out of saveplace.el, and vc-diff returns gibberish.

When you prefer that coding system, Emacs communicates with
a process by utf-16le-with-signature, so it's not surprising
that vc-diff doesn't work.  I think almost all tools using
external process without explicit a coding system stop
working.

As I've never used saveplace.el, I don't know why it doesn't
work.  Please describe the problem in more detail.

---
Kenichi Handa
handa@m17n.org

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/7/05, Kenichi Handa <handa@m17n.org> wrote:

> When you prefer that coding system, Emacs communicates with
> a process by utf-16le-with-signature, so it's not surprising
> that vc-diff doesn't work.

I never doubted there was a good reason ;-)

So, is there any way to convince Emacs that I want to put
utf-16le-with-signature high in the list of coding systems to try when
reading a file (with find-file), and not when communicating with
processes, etc.? Basically I want to use latin-9 for everything, but I
want to be able to do C-x C-f my-utf-16-file and get it decoded right.

> As I've never used saveplace.el, I don't know why it doesn't
> work.  Please describe the problem in more detail.

I'll try to repeat the problem as soon as I get time.

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Benjamin Riefenstahl]

Hi Juanma,


Juanma Barranquero writes:
> Basically I want to use latin-9 for everything, but I want to be
> able to do C-x C-f my-utf-16-file and get it decoded right.

Have you tried to do something like this:

   (prefer-coding-system 'utf-16le-with-signature)
   (prefer-coding-system 'latin-9)

I.e. first put UTF-16 on the "priority list for automatic detection"
and than override it again with Latin-9 for the defaults.


benny

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Gaëtan LEURENT]

Benjamin Riefenstahl wrote on 07 Jul 2005 20:56:42 +0200:

> Have you tried to do something like this:
>
>    (prefer-coding-system 'utf-16le-with-signature)
>    (prefer-coding-system 'latin-9)
>
> I.e. first put UTF-16 on the "priority list for automatic detection"
> and than override it again with Latin-9 for the defaults.

That would try latin-9 first, and if the file is valid as latin-9 (which
is quite likely), it will fail. Anyway, utf-16 is already on the list on
my emacs ...

As I said in a previous post, I would be nice to have an easy way to
modify coding-category-list without doing the other stuff
prefer-coding-system does.

-- 
Gaëtan LEURENT

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Benjamin Riefenstahl]

Hi Gaëtan,

> Benjamin Riefenstahl wrote on 07 Jul 2005 20:56:42 +0200:
>>    (prefer-coding-system 'utf-16le-with-signature)
>>    (prefer-coding-system 'latin-9)

Gaëtan LEURENT writes:
> That would try latin-9 first, and if the file is valid as latin-9
> (which is quite likely), it will fail. [...]

I thought it would not detect a UTF-16 file as Latin-9 because of all
the NUL characters you get when you try to interpret UTF-16 as an
8-bit encoding.

I just did a test and sadly, detection of Latin-9 seems to like those
NUL characters fine, even though nobody would ever write such a file.
Pity.

benny

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/7/05, Benjamin Riefenstahl <b.riefenstahl@turtle-trading.net> wrote:

>    (prefer-coding-system 'utf-16le-with-signature)
>    (prefer-coding-system 'latin-9)
> 
> I.e. first put UTF-16 on the "priority list for automatic detection"
> and than override it again with Latin-9 for the defaults.

Many UTF-16 files would be detected as Latin-9. Try it with a .REG
file in utf-16le-with-signature mode.

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Kenichi Handa]

In article <f7ccd24b0507070635367ca650@mail.gmail.com>, Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> So, is there any way to convince Emacs that I want to put
> utf-16le-with-signature high in the list of coding systems to try when
> reading a file (with find-file), and not when communicating with
> processes, etc.? Basically I want to use latin-9 for everything, but I
> want to be able to do C-x C-f my-utf-16-file and get it decoded right.

You can use set-coding-priority as below:

(set-coding-priority (list (coding-system-category 'utf-16le-with-signature)))

>>  As I've never used saveplace.el, I don't know why it doesn't
>>  work.  Please describe the problem in more detail.

> I'll try to repeat the problem as soon as I get time.

Thank you.

---
Kenichi Handa
handa@m17n.org

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Kenichi Handa]

In article <f7ccd24b050702075517768c14@mail.gmail.com>, Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:
> BTW, that same node contains this info:

>      If Emacs recognizes the encoding of a file incorrectly, you can
>   reread the file using the correct coding system by typing `C-x <RET> c
>   CODING-SYSTEM <RET> M-x revert-buffer <RET>'.

> Shouldn't it recommend instead `C-x <RET> r CODING-SYSTEM <RET>',
> i.e., `revert-buffer-with-coding-system'?

I agee.  I've just installed that change.

---
Kenichi Handa
handa@m17n.org

Re: Editing exportet registry files

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/8/05, Kenichi Handa <handa@m17n.org> wrote:
> (set-coding-priority (list (coding-system-category 'utf-16le-with-signature)))

Ah, of course you're right. Thanks.

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u