From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: On language-dependent defaults for character-folding Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 20:34:56 +0200 Message-ID: <8337sklhkf.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83twle71xy.fsf@gnu.org> <87io1us0te.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83pow26svf.fsf@gnu.org> <87a8n5srbp.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83d1s17npz.fsf@gnu.org> <87oablfpn3.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <834mdd6llx.fsf@gnu.org> <7fbb8bc7-9a97-4bad-a103-a6690a35241d@default> <834mdc5w6o.fsf@gnu.org> <838u2hu6aq.fsf@gnu.org> <871t899tde.fsf@gnus.org> <83y4ahru04.fsf@gnu.org> <83fuwproyf.fsf@gnu.org> <837fi0sz29.fsf@gnu.org> <83egc8qzjh.fsf@gnu.org> <87egc7evu3.fsf@gnus.org> <83io1jpt4u.fsf@gnu.org> <8360xinj5s.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1456166157 29870 80.91.229.3 (22 Feb 2016 18:35:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 18:35:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: larsi@gnus.org, lokedhs@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 22 19:35:41 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aXvKX-00066Z-9W for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 19:35:33 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51179 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aXvKW-0004HP-Oc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 13:35:32 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35254) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aXvKG-0003rk-Dx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 13:35:20 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aXvKC-0004bV-E6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 13:35:16 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:42686) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aXvKC-0004bR-AU; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 13:35:12 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1464 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aXvK4-0002Xl-Uh; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 13:35:05 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Richard Stallman on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 12:57:54 -0500) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:200483 Archived-At: > From: Richard Stallman > CC: larsi@gnus.org, lokedhs@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 12:57:54 -0500 > > > > Please let's drop the idea of determining the folding behavior > > > automatically from something in Unicide. It is too rigid. > > > We don't determine the behavior from Unicode. We use the Unicode data > > to implement the behavior we consider useful. > > What we have seen is that the behavior that comes from that Unicode > data does not please the users very much. Users seem to have many > different ideas of what folding is useful, and disagree with each > other greatly. My analysis of the discussion is that a small number of specific cases of language-independent folding makes users of some languages unhappy. The number of such cases is small, and they only bother users of a small number of languages we support. My conclusion from that is that the feature as implemented needs to be augmented in minor ways, but is basically correct for the majority of use cases. IOW, it's not perfect, but it's a significant improvement for many. > We should not cling to the set of folding specs that happen to come > from that Unicode data. Let's forget that Unicode data. That'd be a mistake tantamount to throwing the baby with the bathwater. Besides, any alternative data to use for such a feature will be either identical or very similar to what we use now. The only alternative that won't need such similar data is to decide to never have this feature. I don't think we want to do that.