From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?iso-8859-1?B?SvxyZ2VuIEhhcnRtYW5u?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Automatic recognition of some specific coding systems Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 16:31:46 +0100 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1424800391 22052 80.91.229.3 (24 Feb 2015 17:53:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 17:53:11 +0000 (UTC) To: "help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org" Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 24 18:53:04 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-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 1YQJfK-0005R4-J5 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 18:53:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50660 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YQJfJ-0001HZ-Sh for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:53:01 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33196) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YQHm4-0005BU-Mf for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 10:51:56 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YQHlz-0004mT-K8 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 10:51:52 -0500 Original-Received: from dub004-omc4s7.hotmail.com ([157.55.2.82]:53048) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YQHlz-0004mD-Eh for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 10:51:47 -0500 Original-Received: from DUB124-W49 ([157.55.2.73]) by DUB004-OMC4S7.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.22751); Tue, 24 Feb 2015 07:31:46 -0800 X-TMN: [rLh95SdGWxHa4K4KgqOE2nERDbIExfTS] X-Originating-Email: [juergen_hartmann_@hotmail.com] Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Feb 2015 15:31:46.0873 (UTC) FILETIME=[001FD290:01D05047] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Windows 7 or 8 [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 157.55.2.82 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:52:51 -0500 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:102872 Archived-At: Most of the text files that I have to work with are encoded with one=0A= of the coding systems=0A= =0A= utf-8-unix=0A= latin-9-unix=0A= cp850-dos=0A= =0A= Therefore=2C it was very convenient for me that the version 22.3 of=0A= Emacs was (after some minor configuration) perfectly able to=0A= automatically recognize these coding systems from the contents of the=0A= respective files. As I understand=2C this was possible because in that=0A= old Emacs version these tree systems were associated with three=0A= different coding categories=2C i.e.=0A= =0A= coding-category-utf-8=0A= coding-category-iso-8-1 (meanwhile depreciated)=0A= coding-category-ccl=0A= =0A= respectively.=0A= =0A= Now switching to Emacs 24.4=2C I found that two of these coding systems=2C= =0A= =0A= latin-9-unix=0A= cp850-dos=0A= =0A= were bunched together into the category=0A= =0A= coding-category-charset=0A= =0A= presumably with the consequence that I have to choose which one of=0A= these two systems will not be automatically recognized any more.=0A= =0A= Is this conclusion correct?=0A= =0A= If yes=2C this would be a big regression from my point of view=2C so I am= =0A= very interested in any kind of workaround.=0A= (If this has to be done by reimplementing cp850 via CCL=2C it would be=0A= great to get some (link to a) tutorial on this topic.)=0A= =0A= It is clear that there are coding systems that can not be=0A= distinguished just by analyzing the encoded text. But from the=0A= experience with former versions of Emacs I know that this particular=0A= problem is not ill-posed.=0A= =0A= Therefore=2C I would greatly appreciate any help.=0A= =0A= Juergen=0A= =0A= =