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: lisp/ChangeLog coding system Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 08:07:51 +0300 (IDT) Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <200204290155.g3T1tT814296@rum.cs.yale.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1020057155 9457 127.0.0.1 (29 Apr 2002 05:12:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 05:12:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Stephen J. Turnbull" , emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 1723Sl-0002SQ-00 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 07:12:35 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 1723WM-0003cs-00 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 07:16:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1723SS-0006lk-00; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 01:12:16 -0400 Original-Received: from is.elta.co.il ([199.203.121.2]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1723Py-0006cr-00 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 01:09:42 -0400 Original-Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA22477; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 08:07:51 +0300 (IDT) X-Sender: eliz@is Original-To: Stefan Monnier In-Reply-To: <200204290155.g3T1tT814296@rum.cs.yale.edu> Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:3384 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:3384 On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, Stefan Monnier wrote: > We should probably try to split it into > "likely" and "unlikely" options. Where the cut-off point should be, > I don't know The language environment might bring this information somehow. > (non-MIME coding-systems should be in the "unlikely" list, tho). Careful: this might not be true on Windows (cpNNN etc.). > > Eg, I doubt most users _ever_ want to use the -with-esc coding > > systems. (As far as I can tell X Compound Text should serve the > > purpose fine, and users can tell for sure that they don't know what it > > does. The ISO-8859-with-esc are tempting for naive users as "the > > closest to what I want"). > > I don't even know why those systems exist. Try to force Emacs to encode Latin-2 text as iso8859-1 (yes, this does work!), and you will understand, I think ;-)