From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Editing exportet registry files Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 23:48:32 +0200 Message-ID: <85ekafa7db.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <42C45594.9090207@iue.tuwien.ac.at> <1120201971.42c4ecf37e342@l01.iue.tuwien.ac.at> <85vf3ul8sj.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1120427845 13541 80.91.229.2 (3 Jul 2005 21:57:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 21:57:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Juanma Barranquero , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jul 03 23:57:17 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DpCSW-0000WB-GI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 23:57:04 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DpCTh-0000Ve-D7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 17:58:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DpCTH-0000M2-3S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 17:57:52 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DpCT9-0000HB-DP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 17:57:45 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DpCT5-0000CB-7m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 17:57:39 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DpCPv-0005Xy-S0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 17:54:23 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lola.goethe.zz) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DpCIG-0003ad-7u; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 17:46:28 -0400 Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 9290D1C3DB68; Sun, 3 Jul 2005 23:48:32 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: Jason Rumney In-Reply-To: (Jason Rumney's message of "Sun, 03 Jul 2005 22:34:21 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:40273 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:40273 Jason Rumney writes: > gaetan.leurent@ens.fr (Ga=EBtan LEURENT) writes: > >> For UTF-16 with signature, I agree, but UTF-8 could sometimes match >> a Latin-1 file. For instance, "4=D7=BD=3D2" encoded in Latin-1 is valid >> as a UTF-8 string. A friend of mine suggested "Try our new >> exclusive WAZA=C2=AE for just $0.02!" which is even meaningful in both >> cases. > > Coming up with isolated theoretical problem cases should not stop us > from doing what is correct in the other 99% of cases. I think Ga=EBtan is arguing that we should not prefer UTF-8 in a Latin-1 locale. This is pretty much a red herring: we were discussing the UTF-16-with-signature encodings: there is no necessity whatsoever to group their priority with UTF-8. I agree that in a Latin-1 locale, Latin-1 should be preferred over UTF-8 and vice versa as long as the buffers can be interpreted as being valid in both encodings. --=20 David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum