From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Kenichi Handa Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Coding systems documentation Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:22:29 +0900 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1228108979 13080 80.91.229.12 (1 Dec 2008 05:22:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 05:22:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 01 06:24:03 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1L71GM-0002bV-LA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2008 06:24:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45511 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L71FC-0002qf-9Q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:22:50 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L71F5-0002qN-4d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:22:43 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L71F0-0002qA-VM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:22:41 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41796 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L71F0-0002q7-R2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:22:38 -0500 Original-Received: from mx1.aist.go.jp ([150.29.246.133]:59720) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L71Ev-0008Er-SL; Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:22:34 -0500 Original-Received: from rqsmtp2.aist.go.jp (rqsmtp2.aist.go.jp [150.29.254.123]) by mx1.aist.go.jp with ESMTP id mB15MUlY001828; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:22:30 +0900 (JST) env-from (handa@m17n.org) Original-Received: from smtp4.aist.go.jp by rqsmtp2.aist.go.jp with ESMTP id mB15MUPc028459; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:22:30 +0900 (JST) env-from (handa@m17n.org) Original-Received: by smtp4.aist.go.jp with ESMTP id mB15MTZ0003015; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:22:30 +0900 (JST) env-from (handa@m17n.org) Original-Received: from handa by etlken.m17n.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1L71Er-0006c9-Rz; Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:22:29 +0900 In-reply-to: (message from Eli Zaretskii on Mon, 01 Dec 2008 06:11:45 +0200) User-Agent: SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.2 (Yagi-Nishiguchi) APEL/10.2 Emacs/23.0.60 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 9 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:106357 Archived-At: In article , Eli Zaretskii writes: > > From: Kenichi Handa > > CC: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:30:49 +0900 > > > > > > +@c I think this paragraph is no longer correct. > > > > +@ignore > > > > Most coding systems specify a particular character code for > > > > conversion, but some of them leave the choice unspecified---to be chosen > > > > heuristically for each file, based on the data. > > > > +@end ignore > > > > > > > > I think these still exist. For example, there are `undecided' and friends. > > > > > Is this only about undecided? or are there other examples? > > > > All coding systems that don't have -unix, -dos, and -mac at > > the tail leaves the choice of eol-format unspecified. > Yes, but the above says "character code", so it's about text > conversion, not eol conversion. LF and CR are also character code. > > By the way, "specify a particular character code for > > conversion" is a little bit strange. "specify a particular > > conversion rule between an encoded byte sequence and a > > character sequence." is more accurate (and I think clearer). > Right. Then, the distinction of text conversion and eol conversion should be stated beforehand. --- Kenichi Handa handa@ni.aist.go.jp