Re: [angeli@iwi.uni-sb.de: Coding problem with Euro sign]

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Kevin Rodgers <ihs_4664@yahoo.com>
> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:58:22 -0700
> 
> Ralf Angeli wrote:
>  > Currently I am on GNU/Linux.  Anyway, with the development version of
>  > Emacs I did not have the problems with cp1252 you described when
>  > loading the file.  But when trying to write the file I got this
>  > warning:
>  >
>  > ,----
>  > | Warning (:warning): Invalid coding system `cp1252' is specified
>  > | for the current buffer/file by the variable `auto-coding-regexp-alist'.
>  > | It is highly recommended to fix it before writing to a file.
>  > `----
>  >
>  > I didn't do `M-x codepage-setup RET' before trying all of this.
>  > Interestingly loading and writing the file worked fine if I used
>  > windows-1252 instead of cp1252.
> 
> Well, there you go.  Emacs 22.0 supports windows-1252, and Emacs 21.4
> only supports cp850.

As I wrote elsewhere in this thread, Emacs 22 has a new implementation
of the code page support (code-pages.el), which doesn't need
codepage-setup, and also supports windows-1252 and other similar
encoding names.  Emacs 21 didn't have that; thus the differences in
behavior described above.

>  > After the encoding was identified to be a Windows
>  > codepage, the exact codepage could be chosen based on the language
>  > environment.  But this suggestion is just random guesswork from my
>  > side because I know close to nothing about what processes are involved
>  > in identifying an encoding.
> 
> Me neither, your idea sounds reasonable to me.

I may be missing something, but where is the problem?  Emacs already
uses the Windows language environment to select the default code
page.  (I didn't track this long thread, so perhaps I don't understand
the issue you were discussing here.)  Are you talking about the
default code page, or something else?  If that's not the default code
page, then the language environment is not a good guide to decide the
encoding.

> I don't understand why auto-coding-regexp-alist has such a high
> priority (over the coding: tag).

Because we want RMAIL Babyl files to be recognized and read with no
decoding, even if something or someone tagged it with a `coding' tag.

In other words, auto-coding-regexp-alist exists _precisely_ so you
could define something that depends on the file's contents, but takes
precedence over the `coding' tags.