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: utf-8 cut/paste Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 10:10:51 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <1858-Thu27May2004101051+0300-eliz@gnu.org> References: <9003-Tue25May2004080243+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <1190-Wed26May2004201148+0300-eliz@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1085688057 22051 80.91.224.253 (27 May 2004 20:00:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 20:00:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Benjamin.Riefenstahl@epost.de, sds@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Thu May 27 22:00:47 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BTR3W-000461-00 for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 22:00:46 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BTR3W-0001wz-00 for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 22:00:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BTHWn-0007sW-Fm for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Thu, 27 May 2004 05:50:21 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.34) id 1BTHJj-0005X9-FU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2004 05:36:51 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.34) id 1BTFAa-0008Tt-1d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2004 03:19:48 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.114.186.23] (helo=aragorn.inter.net.il) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BTF4R-0007DV-O5; Thu, 27 May 2004 03:12:55 -0400 Original-Received: from zaretski (pns03-196-231.inter.net.il [80.230.196.231]) by aragorn.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id CYL31228; Thu, 27 May 2004 10:12:42 +0300 (IDT) Original-To: Stefan Monnier X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on 26 May 2004 16:02:59 -0400) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:24033 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:24033 > From: Stefan Monnier > Date: 26 May 2004 16:02:59 -0400 > > > If we did that, it would make the unfortunate situation, whereby there > > are multiple charsets that cover the same characters, even worse. > > Isn't it exactly what happened with 8859-15 ? > I never claimed it was desirable. It was extremely unfortunate, but given that 8859-15 introduced a new character that everybody and their dog wanted to be able to use, there was really no other choice, as Unicode support was not ready yet to become a viable alternative. With the cpNNN issue, we _could_ afford losing some MS-specific characters that were not supported by the then existing charsets. (With a better Unicode supporte we have now, code-pages fixes even that problem by mapping cpNNN directly into Unicode.) > > Repeat after me: "multiple character sets covering the same characters > > are BAD." > > You're just saying that unicode is good. Sure, but when cpNNN was introduced (Emacs 20.2, I think), Unicode support in Emacs was almost non-existent. The issue that was before me was whether to introduce additional charsets covering characters that already existed, and I felt strongly that we shouldn't do that without a VERY good reason.