From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Warning and iso 8859-1 default?] Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 09:24:35 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87zhlbtw7z.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <83blxry35u.fsf@gnu.org> <87o91rtulo.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <87sgr38rux.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> <878ssvtu47.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <8336j3y0zf.fsf@gnu.org> <87r26nscwo.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <83r26nwigy.fsf@gnu.org> <87y30sg708.fsf_-_@mat.ucm.es> <87a7d8fzjx.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <83ftn0sj9v.fsf@gnu.org> <83ef2ksiy6.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="144738"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jul 21 15:24:58 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hpBph-000bWh-E5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 15:24:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56030 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hpBpg-0004kp-Cf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 09:24:56 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44996) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hpBpY-0004ki-FN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 09:24:49 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hpBpX-0004C1-JC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 09:24:48 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:20923) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hpBpW-0004B3-5s; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 09:24:46 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 519974451CE; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 09:24:44 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3FF8A4451AE; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 09:24:43 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1563715483; bh=sVOsqVsLqTLbYSX6Ega99sBzY2icxjirhxR7UpnxTiU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=ITVFhmXjsop8vQMlwyaHguRAjQr/uNGiVWnQplsZ0P9S0EohbhLKrSz6VoKpyoCD2 /2Htkfep0Npw55y5rxJ5UlYujUjzmKrKRrZihTtvcsZzXSIbQCuXD9EXHx7uIab6Ko k6AWlUXwt++OHPCy/ildj6UEm5NtFAmM1fRqZNSaf2KU0C4J9WfBcKBHyBTvlT6syZ 7yKgYAc5XJPYqDOvMoyzz/f8GTc65YEID+ihusH+zDQ4+TPBMlOsQycb16yLL3va0r GIEbmotTyaBOSsZgyrj/IUf0tK0EPKNW/EfcNyC5bx07DsYaZd90zVW32Pwh1UjASl uKQKSY5GXwrNQ== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [216.154.19.233]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A4257121495; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 09:24:42 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83ef2ksiy6.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 20 Jul 2019 20:40:33 +0300") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 132.204.25.50 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:238764 Archived-At: >> >> I see, then I guess the only place where we could detect the problem is >> >> in `save-buffer`. >> > What problem is that? >> The problem of saving the file in an encoding that will be mis-detected >> when read back using that same Emacs. > That would make saving using any single-byte encoding "a problem", > right? Not quite: there's usually one single-byte encoding that's correctly detected (iso-8859-1 in Uwe's case). BTW, when I saw "a problem" I don't mean something we should prevent, but Uwe expected to be warned about it somewhere along the way. > Rather than calling this a problem we should perhaps work on improving > detection of single-byte encodings. Single-byte encodings are pretty rare nowadays, so I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. But maybe you're right (e.g. maybe the spread of utf-8 makes it less frequent for people to have the expertise needed to guess the right encoding when it's not utf-8). Stefan