On 2008-03-21 15:12:41 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > BTW, it seems that Mutt mixes the locale charset and the editor > charset. This is also something bad. For instance, I use > ISO-8859-1 locales (in an ISO-8859-1 terminal) and want to reply > to a message written in UTF-8, with characters that are not part > of ISO-8859-1. Fortunately, my editor (Emacs) knows how to edit > UTF-8 files even when working in ISO-8859-1 locales (if it uses > its own window, not the terminal one, it can even display these > characters; otherwise it uses replacement characters for the > display (only)). So, I could theoretically reply to the message > without any loss in the quoted part and send the reply in UTF-8, > but Mutt doesn't let me do so.
So, why don't you use utf-8 in terminals? Last time I used linux, that worked very well -- and it works very well on MacOS now, too. I frankly wouldn't bother adding code to mutt to work properly in another inconsistent specification edge case, where the user actually runs several locales in parallel. -- Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
