Encoding again

Encoding again

[Soren Kuula]

Hi,

As far as I can see, there is no or little difference between the coding 
systems:

emacs-mule
raw-text
no-conversion
binary

-- how can I see if any of them are simply aliases?

-- and would someone know the differences ?

I'm writing about i18n for some people who (regrettably ? -- Something 
like Eclipse would have been so much easier) are using Emacs a lot.

Thanks

Soren

Re: Encoding again

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

Soren Kuula <dongfang-remove_this@remove_this-bitplanet.net> writes:

> As far as I can see [...]

what is your method of seeing?

thi

Re: Encoding again

[Stefan Monnier]

> As far as I can see, there is no or little difference between the
> coding systems:

> emacs-mule
> raw-text
> no-conversion
> binary

binary == no-conversion == raw-text-unix.

raw-text is almost the same except it does end-of-line conversion.

emacs-mule is completely different: reading a file with one of the other
3 encoding will only generate chars between 0 and 255, whereas with
emacs-mule you can get literally any char (it's an encoding loosely
comparable to iso-2022 or to utf-8).

emacs-mule should generally be avoided (it's the internal encoding used
inside Emacs buffers and can change between Emacs versions).


        Stefan