It has come to my attention... ...that Baurjan Ismagulov said on Wednesday, Aug 28 2002: > Example: let's take a message encoded in iso-8859-1 and containing the > character '�' (LATIN SMALL LETTER C WITH CEDILLA, octal code 347). The > following table outlines how the message is displayed with different > LC_CTYPE and charset values on a system with (hopefully) properly > configured locales (mutt 1.4.0-2 on Debian unstable): [...]
Hmm, interesting, I have a Debian machine at home, but I check my mail on a RedHat 7.1 machine at work. My locale, including my LC_CTYPE variable, is always set to "en_US", therefore I didn't notice this problem. Another thing; I've kept my locale at this value but changed the $charset to euc-jp to read and write to Japanese correspondents in a kterm, without problems. [...] > Here LC_CTYPE and charset are the environment and mutt variables, > respectively. "Mutt shows" column lists what mutt is actually > displaying. "User wants" and "user expects" show what I call "override": > the charset to be assumed by mutt given the two variable values, and the > character that, IMHO, should be displayed by mutt according to the > charset assumed. Try keeping your locale to en_US.ISO8859-1. I think, provided LC_CTYPE allows for 8-bits, you should be able to set $charset to something different from LC_CTYPE, without problems. At least, I'm able to do this with $charset=euc-jp. > At the moment, I can see neither any useful application of ? and \347 > distinction, nor the relation between LC_CTYPE and charset -- I > certainly cannot call it "override". Seems to me as if it was some side > effect of code layering inside mutt. > > And the logic I propose is: > 1. if charset is set, assumed_charset = charset; > otherwise, if LC_CTYPE is set, assumed_charset = LC_CTYPE; > otherwise, assumed_charset = "us-ascii". > 2. * display ccedilla if it can be displayed with assumed_charset; > * display ? if it can't. > > I don't insist my scheme is "better" since I don't know the rationale > behind the current design. However, I see much user confusion with this > issue and think it could be made more simple, more stupid the way I've > desribed. > > What do you think? I'll admit, $charset was a confusing variable for me, and the manual section on it is rather sparse. Perhaps additional documentation on it would help. > > > With kind regards, > Baurjan. -- --Sam UC Davis, California USA
msg30474/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
