Re: Bug 130397 (Was: Emacs - Ispell problem with i[no]german dictionary)

[Agustin Martin]

On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 10:54:23AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> If this is an issue of encodings, could you talk about it with
> address@hidden, and cc emavs-devel?  Handa is the expert on
> this part of Emacs.
> 

Hi, 

As Richard suggested I am writing to you about this problem. I have been
recently taking a look at some of the Debian spell related emacs21 bug
reports and was trying to reproduce this one, as well as getting aditional
information. You can find the full thread at

http://bugs.debian.org/130397

and this is what I saw when trying to reproduce the problem (same contents
as in my mail to Richard with a minor adition)

Having french selected as ispell default I do:

a) Start emacs with address@hidden locale and manually type the (mispelled)
   french word dèplorable. Try ispell-word it. Bug reproduced, high bit is
   not considered a word element.
b) After previous step, I save the file containing that word and run emacs
   on it again. ispell-word now works as expected and detects the complete
   mispelled word proposing the right fix.

In both cases, emacs is called as

$ address@hidden emacs fr-test &

c) If I now type again the mispelled word after the previous one, previous
   word is properly handled by ispell mode, but the bug is reproduced for
   the just typed one. Also, both 'è' (previous and last one) clearly seem
   to have a different look when using address@hidden However, if I
   type it with a latin1 LC_ALL they look similar.

d) If I save the file and re-edit, ispell-word now works well on both words.

I have tested this with 'sid' Debian emacs21 (version 21.3+1-5)

This seems to be a problem with the way emacs internally handles different
encodings. My guess is that emacs is handling differently the 'è' character
(In case of encoding problems in the mail, it is the grave accented 
lowercase e) when typed in the address@hidden locale than when file is read from
disk or typed in the fr_FR locale.

This also sounds me to something I read somewhere about 'emacs utf-8 support
is not yet complete' problem, but I cannot remember now where I found that.

I do not know if this is already fixed in CVS emacs, but is better to be
sure that you are aware of this.

Thanks,

-- 
Agustin