Re: Gnus reply encoding

[Katsumi Yamaoka]

>>>>> In <address@hidden> Miles Bader wrote:

> Katsumi Yamaoka <address@hidden> writes:
>> (iso-8859-1 iso-2022-jp iso-2022-jp-2 shift_jis utf-8)
>>
>> By the modified value as mentioned above, iso-2022-jp-2 will not
>> be chosen if there are only ascii text and £ sign.  I'm going to
>> change the default value in Japan into the same value as I'm
>> using, later.

> This is still really kind of wrong though.

> What situation is the setting of `mm-coding-system-priorities' supposed to
> solve, which the defaults get wrong for typical Japanese users?

That will be because MIME charset is chosen based on the
priority of coding categories.  It seems to aim to determine the
file encoding, but it doesn't always fit for Japanese messages.

> I imagine the problem is that there are `small' encodings (like 8859*), and
> `big' encodings (like iso-2022-jp, utf-8, etc), and what you really want to
> say is "prefer the japanese big encodings to other big encodings" (whereas
> probably the default should probably be "prefer utf-8 to other big 
> encodings").
> For a message that's entirely with a small encoding you probably want to
> use the defaults.

Well, I might not be able to understand what big and small
mean.  Those charsets are visible to me at the same rank. :)  I
only know that `mm-coding-system-priorities' was made, in order
to solve the problem that Japanese messages are encoded by the
euc-jp MIME charset or the shift_jis MIME charset.  And it is
going well actually.

> I wonder if adding such a classification (`big' and `small' encodings;
> probably with better names :-) and making the mm priority mechanism
> sensitive to the difference would help.

Could you show me a good example?  It may have to be done in
Gnus since Gnus also supports old Emacsen and XEmacsen, though.