> As far as looking into other editors, xemacs works great for me - I
> don't intend to change it. The problem of a good Unicode
> editor is very much present.
I have been tracking XEmacs for this purpose on Win32 for quite some time.
Actually, I would even settle for a decent subset of Unicode. Unfortunately
Win32 Unicode editing is simply not supported in XEmacs stable, and the 21.5
branch does not produce binaries - being beta.
As Stephen put it:
>> Replacing the current Mule internal representation with Unicode is
planned, but not
>> going to happen soon.
As it looks right now, simple unicode editing should be done with GNU Emacs,
and to get good unicode support, you have to use (g)vim. It works well even
on Win32, but using it is a pain for someone who has emacsen in their nervous
system.
I'm sorry Stephen, but the amount of UTF-8 encoded messages in newsgroups and
mail is going up all the time. Win32 XEmacs stable has problems even with
ISO-8859-15, not to mention UTF-8. We need a release of 21.5 to get Mule
support on Win32. Even then, any advanced unicode usage would be beyond
XEmacs.
As I have noted earlier, I can't build 21.5 myself, but I could provide test
results if a (net)installer would be provided. I've tried out some of the
unofficial 21.5 builds that have been available, but submitting bugs on old
versions is useless.
I honestly find it fairly tragic that XEmacs running on a Unicode-native OS
fails to provide any decent support for Unicode. As it stands, I can't
recommend XEmacs on Win32. And as I tend to support cross-platform
applications, that means I can't recommend XEmacs on any platform.
I wish this would change. But I don't see that on the horizon.
Camillo