Re: Different (buffer-file-)coding-systems for different regions of one buffer? (for Rmail MIME)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 14:20:54 +0900
> 
>     rms> It is important to have a way to edit the text that is
>     rms> displayed.  It is desirable but not very important to
>     rms> preserve the first charset designation.
> 
> That's assuming that it is text.  This implementation would make
> corruption of attached binaries likely and signed messages somewhat
> likely

Aren't attachments clearly marked in the message as being such?  Can't
Emacs look for those markers (the part delimiters in a multi-part
message) and refrain from decoding binary data while decoding text?

> Kai Grossjohann's answer to this (rename the presentation buffer to
> RMAIL, users rarely will want to see the full buffer, so it can be
> renamed to a "hidden" buffer name) is correct as far as I can tell
> from my own experience, convenient for the user, and easily
> implemented.

I see one significant disadvantage of this design: it will require
thorough rewrite of many parts in RMAIL, since the code as it is now
assumes a single buffer, narrowed as required.  I don't have enough
information and experience to judge whether this is a serious
disadvantage, though.