Re: Several serious problems

[Dave Love]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

>     Why just Latin-N, and why just as utf-8?
> 
> I am talking about that issue because that is the issue someone
> raised.  I don't know what other issue there is.  Could you tell us?

The issue is just the same for the other charsets that have
translation tables in the head code, and for other CCL coding systems.
For instance, the RC version of mule-utf-8 doesn't translate
cyrillic-iso8859-5, and the Cyrillic coding systems don't translate
mule-unicode-0100-24ff.

> Latin-N character sets are very important in practice.

I think the only thing which distinguishes Latin-N is that Latin-1 is
(was?) the Internet default and its code points are a Unicode subset.
I see no reason to treat, say, Latin-2 as more important than
Cyrillic; I guess it has fewer users for a start.  I also guess
windows-1252 is more widely used than Latin-1, like it or not.

> It is also possible that they are easier to handle than some other
> character sets (but I don't know whether that is the case here).

They're treated identically to the others that ucs-tables handles.
You have to work to remove them.  (The sets that are handled are just
the ones I could conveniently make tables for.)

>     Is it also a bug that utf-8 can't encode the CJK space or that the CJK
>     sets can't encode equivalent characters from other sets (which I
>     haven't tried to address and people probably don't care about)?
> 
> That is certainly a bug.

I actually agree with your previous opinion that lack of translations
isn't a bug as such, despite what PROBLEMS implied -- the features
behave as designed and documented.

I definitely don't agree that general lack of unification of Japanese
characters is a bug.  I got detailed information on the problems with
jisx mappings to Unicode, and we were asked not to confuse matters by
providing jisx0213 tables in Emacs 22, which is designed not to force
that.  (The jisx0208 that utf-8-subst.el uses is a case in point, but
I assume the Mule-UCS table I used is what Japanese linguists agree
on.)  It's also not clear that one should unify double-width
characters with iso8859, for instance.