[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: unicode in emacs 21

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: unicode in emacs 21
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 21:10:22 +0200

> From: Markus Kuhn <address@hidden>
> Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 19:27:51 +0100 (BST)
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > Is the internal representation still the special MULE format ??~
> >
> > Yes.  But the internal representation is not the problem here; ideally,
> > users and Lisp programs shouldn't be worrying about how characters are
> > represented internally.  The problem is that characters are still not
> > unified in Emacs 21.
> Not entirely.
> Internal representation does matter somewhat when it comes to the handling
> of malformed UTF-8 sequences. I think it is highly desireable that the
> UTF-8 -> emacs internal -> UTF-8 conversion roundtrip is made 100% binary
> transparent.

I think this already works in Emacs 21.1, even though the internal
representation is nowhere near UTF-8.  If you see something else,
please report that as a bug.

> Using UTF-8 as the internal Emacs encoding is one way of achieving
> continued guaranteed binary transparency, coming up with a tricky encoding
> for malformed UTF-8 sequences is another one. I favour the former
> approach, which is also what other UTF-8 capable modern editors do today.

Emacs cannot use a pure UTF-8 encoding, since some cultures don't want
unification, and it was decided that Emacs should not force
unification on those cultures.  So the planned Unicode-based internal
representation resembles UTF-8 very closely, but is not identical to

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]