Re: Unicode/Mule (Re: null-device)

[Stefan Monnier]

> Mule has issues (and you all know about them); maybe, the \201 issue is
> fixed by -- unfortunately, I've still to handle broken files coming in
> (on account of the Translation Project).  It was (and is?) Emacs
> creating those files.  And Emacs 21.x is still clueless to detect this
> mess and to guide the user to fix this files.  If you're interested in
> example files I can make those files available.

This is orthogonal to whether Emacs uses a Unicode internal
representation or not.  It's due to the internal representation not
being the same as the external one.

> Emacs/Mule forces "western" users to accept special far east
> assumptions.  The consequence is, Gnus often thinks it has to create a
> multipart message...  Yes, it will only do so if you'll enter three 'y'
> (yes) in a row -- this isn't "user-friendly" (Eli).

So you're just saying that we should use an internal representation
based on Unicode.  You're preaching to the choir here.

> Yes, I'm all with you (really).  But it's Eli who permanently complains
> "we don't have enough developers".  Sure, you don't have to follow
> proposals by Eric Naggum, Werner LEMBERG or me to improve the
> situation.  It isn't nice to blame us who we try to show ways out.

I have no clue what you're trying to get at.  Do you want to help
us switch from the iso-2022'ish internal representation to
something based on Unicode or do you want to keep trying to convince
us of what you already know ?

I'm not trying to be offensive, but just pointing out that Mule-bashing
is not very constructive.  I think we all here want to switch to a
Unicode-based internal representation.  So you're welcome to help us out.


        Stefan