Re: windows-XXXX and cpXXXX

[Kenichi Handa <handa@m17n.org>]

In article <u7j9664ke.fsf@gnu.org>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>>  From: Kenichi Handa <handa@m17n.org>
>>  CC: angeli@iwi.uni-sb.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>>  Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:35:34 +0900
>>  
>>  >>    cp437 cp720 cp737 cp775 cp850 cp851 cp852 cp855 cp857 cp860
>>  >>    cp861 cp862 cp863 cp864 cp865 cp866 cp869 cp874 cp1125
>>  
>>  Here, I forgot to add cp1251 and cp9XXs.
>>  
>>  >>  But it seems that windows-XXXX are quite frequently called
>>  >>  as cpXXXX(*).  If so, I'll register cpXXXXs as alises of the
>>  >>  corresponding windows-XXXXs, ok?
>>  
>>  > Won't that increase the confusion, which is IMHO already too high,
>>  > between codepage.el and code-pages.el?  
>>  
>>  They already support a coding system of the same name
>>  (e.g. cp720) in a different way.

> Then I'd rather remove DOS codepages (as opposed to Windows codepages)
> from code-pages.el, than add more cpNNN encodings to it.

>>  What kind of confusion does making aliases cp125[02345678] increase?

> Confusion between codepage.el and code-pages.el.  They are different
> and subtly incompatible, but define symbols that are almost identical.
> As code-pages.el cannot be used in the MS-DOS port, we cannot throw
> away codepage.el.  Thus, I think DOS codepages (whose names are cpNNN)
> should be provided only by codepage.el.

I don't know the distinction of cpNNN and cpNNNN.

If cpNNN are only for DOS and are never used in the other
environment, I agree that having cpNNN in code-pages.el is
useless.

But, as for cpNNNN,
<http://www.microsoft.com/typography/unicode/cscp.htm> says
that Windows uses codepages 125[012345678].  And if it's a
convention to refer to them by names cp125X, shouldn't we
provide those names for non-DOS users?

>>  I didn't intend to change them.  My suggestion is just to
>>  make cp125[02345678] as an aliases of windows-125[02345678].

> My concern would be how a user is to know which library of the two she
> is using, or should use in a given situation.

DOS users use codepage.el.  The other users use
code-pages.el.  Isn't it clear?

> I already saw several confused users on help-gnu-emacs.
> So I think we need to sanitize these two libraries from
> each other's namespace.  Adding cpNNN aliases would be a
> step in the wrong direction.

> Alternatively, someone who has more time than I do could add to
> code-pages.el what it is lacking now to fully support the MS-DOS port,
> and then we could toss codepage.el and add the aliases you asked about
> to code-pages.el.

Unfortunately, I, too, don't have a time merge them. :-(

---
Kenichi Handa
handa@m17n.org