> > I don't see any failure. Richard's complaint was that characters > without glyphs were getting displayed as long hex strings rather than > the "diamond" that they were previously displayed as. I think the > complaint has merit. It seems to me to be a classic case for a user > option. > You forget to mention that the context in which this bug was fixed in January is that RMS complained that ligatures such as "fi" showed up as a diamond (see [1]). At that time what he wanted is that Emacs would automatically replace such ligatures by two letters in his Linux console, and that's what he got: Eli improved the latin1-display-ucs-per-lynx function in fd42ba3adb. At that time diamonds were considered "unhelpful", and he said for example: "I doubt any user wants to see a diamond instead of `fi'." During that discussion, the bug that is now objected against was also fixed, by 10c680551e. I, too, doubt any user wants to see a diamond instead of an actual character! Why are these diamonds suddenly useful again? How comes that a proposed solution with which ligatures such as "fi" are actually displayed as "fi", with which UTF-8 is actually supported instead of having to resort to ugly hacks such as latin1-display-ucs-per-lynx, and with which missing glyphs are in fact again displayed with these same diamonds, is criticized? [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2022-01/msg01176.html