"H. Peter Anvin" wrote on 2002-01-02 02:38 UTC: > If Emacs does something different than the rest of the system, Emacs > users could be severely and very painfully SHAFTED. Unfortunately I > have found that since MULE was integrated in Emacs 20, Emacs cannot be > guaranteed to be safe to use in a monolingual environment, especially > when you're having to deal with files with mixed binary and text data. > This, in my opinion, is a just hugely enormous braindamage introduced > into my favourite editor.
I agree fully, and for those who haven't been following [EMAIL PROTECTED], there is good news on the horizon: There is work going on to introduce proper UTF-8 support into Emacs. MULE will be modified such that a variant of UTF-8 (called UTF-E) becomes the internal encoding of Emacs. One of the fundamental design requirements of all this was that in UTF-8 mode, editing remains 100% binary transparent. Emacs 22 must not mess up with malformed UTF-8 sequences, as it does now, and it seems work on this is already scheduled. The next major Emacs release will hopefully be binary safe again! Markus -- Markus G. Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, UK Email: mkuhn at acm.org, WWW: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/> -- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
