Hrvoje> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull(a)sk.tsukuba.ac.jp&gt; writes: Hrvoje> We lose nothing by allowing Latin 2 this way. The Latin *2*? You mean in a Latin-2-font-using (no-Mule) XEmacs? How do you distinguish in Mule? Or do you mean allowing it for Latin *1* as a special case is OK? Jan> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull(a)sk.tsukuba.ac.jp&gt; writes: Jan> The problem is what to do with stuff like x-iso8859-1.el Jan> then. It should be Mule-ized. I don't have a problem with doing that in an 8-bit XEmacs, but in a Mule XEmacs such a Latin-1 bias is (in principle) unacceptable. Politically a compromise may need to be made, of course. It should be possible to have x-iso8859-2.el etc as a trivial modification of x-iso8859-1.el; at present it is not. I find it hard to imagine that there will be (character) keysyms outside the repertoire of Unicode; doing it all through Unicode in a Mule XEmacs should be the way to go. Then that file could be generalized. Actually, it could be split into a set of nomule versions similar to the current x-iso8859-1.el but in various 8-bit encodings, and a mule version based on keysym to Unicode mappings, and a `(require 'x-keysym)' would grab the appropriate one depending on the hardware environment if `(not (featurep 'mule))'. -- University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091 __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ What are those two straight lines for? "Free software rules."