Re: Cyrillic vs UTF-8

[Kenichi Handa]

In article <address@hidden>, Simon Josefsson <address@hidden> writes:
> It seems binary is preferred over utf-8 and utf-16-* in
> coding-category-list.  This seems extremely conservative.  I guess it
> means UTF-8 can never be autodetected by default?  Is the unicode
> support so bad it shouldn't even be preferred over binary?  UTF-8 is
> well formed and restricted; detecting it properly (even compared to
> Latin-n) can be done well enough that failures rarely happen in
> practice.

> Can't we move binary down below UTF-8 in CVS?  IMHO we should move
> UTF-8 earlier still, since determining whether data is UTF-8 or not
> can be done with good probability.  Prefering binary over UTF-8 seems
> just wrong.

Unfortunately, the current Emacs doesn't have a facility to
detect UTF-8 byte sequence.  So, if we put UTF-8 the higher
priority, all files are detected as UTF-8.  :-(

> There used to be (in Emacs 21.2) a PROBLEMS entry suggesting what you
> say, but it has been removed both in 21.3 and in CVS.  I thought that
> meant UTF-8 was better supported now, but this doesn't seem to be the
> case.

The UTF-8 support was surely improved but not that much as
you expect.

By the way, all these problems are solved in emacs-unicode.
It's available from CVS server as a branch tag
"emacs-unicode" (see
http://savannah.gnu.org/cvs/?group=emacs).

---
Ken'ichi HANDA
address@hidden