[Q] Handle bytes in the range 0x80-0xC0 better when dealing with ISO-IR 196.

[David Kastrup]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull at sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> writes:

> David Kastrup writes:
>
>  > And the point is that Emacs 22, even Emacs 21 _manage_ dealing with
>  > this, even when (in a Latin-1 locale or a LaTeX that believes to be in
>  > one) utf-8 sequences get only partly transliterated by TeX and thus
>  > fails to be legal utf-8.
>
> 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.  It
would imply that the process collecting the information has to have a
binary encoding so as to keep the info.  But the output is placed into
a user-readable buffer, and in those cases where TeX is not barfing
characters into pieces all over (some people manage to configure that,
but it is not the rule), it makes no sense to display graphic
characters.

> Agreed, XEmacs *should* do it for you.  I would love to get the
> capability to be able to output "most" of a buffer (ie, except for
> "small" regions around changes) exactly as it was read in.  I just
> disagree that Aidan's approach is a good one, especially since it
> implies that we will have to support these warts indefinitely
> (that's part of Aidan's proposal).

If you have a less warty proposal, I doubt people will complain about
implementing that.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum