Re: [Q] Handle bytes in the range 0x80-0xC0 better when dealing with ISO-IR 196.
David Kastrup writes:
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
> My point is that if you're doing all that work anyway,
it's not all
> that much extra work to do it on the binary representation, then
> convert what you think is UTF-8 yourself.
You can't work on material that has the information lost already.
Right. Let TeX do what it will, and set process-output-coding-system
to 'binary. You will lose no information that TeX provides that way.
If you have a less warty proposal, I doubt people will complain
about
implementing that.
If Aidan wants to put his broken-Unicode coding system in a package, I
have no objection to that. I just object strongly to putting it in
core and promising to support it in the future.
The issue is that pretty much anything that doesn't involve rewriting
our file-coding mechanism is going to be warty, and if it's in core it
will involve making promises that I sure don't want to keep (cf.
latin-unity, which is a hack that I wrote and am pleased with, but
nevertheless I am the most determined opponent of putting it in core).
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta