From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#12291: [rev 109796] wrong UTF-8 handling Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 05:40:09 +0300 Message-ID: <83627vg77a.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87392zvs45.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1346641495 21309 80.91.229.3 (3 Sep 2012 03:04:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 03:04:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 12291@debbugs.gnu.org, smithcu@gvsu.edu To: Kenichi Handa Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Sep 03 05:04:56 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@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 1T8My5-0002vU-HD for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 05:04:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36262 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T8My2-0003LP-4V for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 02 Sep 2012 23:04:50 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:47637) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T8Mxz-0003KT-BS for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Sep 2012 23:04:48 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T8Mxx-0002RA-Lc for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Sep 2012 23:04:47 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:53932) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T8MaX-0003cM-73 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Sep 2012 22:40:33 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T8Mby-00069p-Nd for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Sep 2012 22:42:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 02:42:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 12291 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 12291-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B12291.134664011323654 (code B ref 12291); Mon, 03 Sep 2012 02:42:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 12291) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Sep 2012 02:41:53 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35245 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T8Mbp-00069S-0a for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 02 Sep 2012 22:41:53 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:36283) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T8Mbj-00069H-Gb for 12291@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 02 Sep 2012 22:41:48 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0M9R00D0061YJX00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for 12291@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 05:40:03 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0M9R00DVT62R9X50@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 05:40:03 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <87392zvs45.fsf@gnu.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:63695 Archived-At: > From: Kenichi Handa > Cc: wl@gnu.org, 12291@debbugs.gnu.org, smithcu@gvsu.edu > Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 09:59:22 +0900 > > > We can either read them as raw bytes, or convert them to u+FFFD. The > > former sounds like a more useful behavior to me, FWIW. > > What to convert to U+FFFD? Each byte, or the byte sequence? The byte sequence. > Anyway, we can't simply convert them to U+FFFD because it > results in change of file contents just by reading and > writing. Yes, and that's why I prefer the raw-bytes way. > I think converting each invalid byte to raw-byte is simpler > and equally useful. It's more useful, I think.