Re: MULE shows gibberish; now what?

[Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org>]

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Jason Rumney 
<jasonr@btinternet.co>], who wrote in article <m28z1jp7z1.fsf@nyaumo.btinternet.com>:
> Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org> writes:
> 
> > > I don't know how much of this will change in Emacs 22, but at the
> > > moment, that's the way it is.  And because Emacs considers them to
> > > be different characters, Emacs doesn't use glyphs for one
> > > character to display another.  And latin1-disp.el is the exception
> > > from that rule...
> > 
> > Note that your "because" is misplaced.  Even if buffer-filling engine
> > does not consider them the same, the display engine might have
> > remapped them for display purposes to the same codepoint in the same
> > font.
> 
> To do so, the display engine would require mapping tables. So far,
> tables have been contributed for mapping the following encodings to
> and from iso8859-5: koi8, koi8-r, alternativnyj, cp855, cp866,
> windows-1251. If you wish to volunteer to create mapping tables for
> gb2312, jis0208 etc, I'm sure they will be accepted.

I made tables for 1 jis and 1 ksc so that xterm can use such fonts for
utf stuff (not in the released versions of xterm yet :-[).  However, I
do not see a point in supporting Emacs: even if I contribute these,
they would not be used for display purposes - Emacs does not do
remapping for display purposes...

Ilya