[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Emacs Lisp's future
From: |
Stephen J. Turnbull |
Subject: |
Re: Emacs Lisp's future |
Date: |
Tue, 07 Oct 2014 09:33:44 +0900 |
David Kastrup writes:
> That sounds like you are talking about a processing pipe.
No, I'm talking about a Unicode conformant process. If you don't need
Unicode conformance and do need to emit garbage, you can specify a
Unicode-like but non-conformant codec. All I'm saying (and Mark I
believe is on the smae page, if not the same octet) is that
(1) Emacs codecs corresponding to published standards (specifically,
UTF-8 and other UTFs) should conform to those standards by
default, even where that means annoying users (they'll learn to
request non-conformant codecs if that's really what they want).
(2) Emacs should make special effort at conformance with Unicode
because it is especially well-defined.
Making this pleasant for users will require some effort, but will be
well worth it in the end.
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Mark H Weaver, 2014/10/06
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/10/06
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/10/06
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/10/06
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/10/06
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/10/06
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future,
Stephen J. Turnbull <=
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Richard Stallman, 2014/10/07
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/10/07
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/10/06
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Mark H Weaver, 2014/10/06
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/10/06
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/10/06
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/10/06
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/10/06
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/10/06
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/10/06