missing font vs. illegal char

missing font vs. illegal char

[Dan Jacobson]

$ { echo '-*-coding: utf-8-unix;-*-';
 wget -O - http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs/examples/UTF-8-test.txt;} > h.html
$ emacs h.html

I see the same rectangles for illegal characters that I do for missing
fonts in view-hello-file.

So emacs (21.4.1) doesn't distinguish the two cases. What would be
best is like firefox with the rectangles with the hex digits for
missing fonts... and diamonds with "?" for illegal chars.

Re: missing font vs. illegal char

[Kevin Rodgers]

Dan Jacobson wrote:
> $ { echo '-*-coding: utf-8-unix;-*-';
>  wget -O - http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs/examples/UTF-8-test.txt;} > h.html
> $ emacs h.html
> 
> I see the same rectangles for illegal characters that I do for missing
> fonts in view-hello-file.
> 
> So emacs (21.4.1) doesn't distinguish the two cases. What would be
> best is like firefox with the rectangles with the hex digits for
> missing fonts... and diamonds with "?" for illegal chars.

What is the point of naming the plain text file with the .html
extension, which invokes HTML mode?  And what is the point of
invalidating the HTML by inserting the Emacs file coding variable
outside of a comment (<!-- ... -->)?

-- 
Kevin Rodgers

Re: missing font vs. illegal char

[Dan Jacobson]

K> What is the point of naming the plain text file with the .html
Oops. I should have called it .txt.
Anyway, I don't think emacs shows a different glyph for an illegal
character vs. an OK character that lacks a font.