RE: highlighting non-ASCII characters

[Drew Adams]

> >> > In my case, I customize `escape-glyph' to be something very 
> >> > noticeable (orange background, with blue foreground and
> >> > 1-pixel blue box). I want to see something like ^G really
> >> > stand out.  I don't want to see
> >> > non-ascii chars handled the same way.
> >>
> >> Actually, in the original case (a weird non-ASCII K in the 
> >> middle of ASCII text), I would want it to stand out.
> >> The problem there 
> >> is how to define "weird".
> 
> > Whether you want non-ASCII chars to also stand out is a separate
> > question. My point is that I don't want to see them handled 
> > _the same way_ as ^G et compagnie.
> 
> What I'm saying is that there are two issues: non-ASCII chars 
> in general (which I personally don't want to display in any
> special manner:
> they're just as normal as ASCII chars), and then there are "chars that
> are out of place or that may not be what they look like", such as the
> weird "K" in the other message's "OK" (which to me, is similar to the
> NBSP char in that it is meant to be displayed in the same way as some
> other char, so we want to call the attention of the user to the
> difference).
> 
> > Having separate faces lets users get the behavior they want.  If you
> > then want to customize the two faces to look the same, no problem.
> 
> I don't insist on using escape-glyph for those chars, indeed (I don't
> really care which face is used for them).  What I care about 
> is figuring out how to define programmatically "chars that are
> out of place or that may not be what they look like".

Sounds good to me. When you figure it out, you can have a way to highlight
"weird" non-ASCII that's different from escape-glyph. And if someone also wants
a way to highlight non-weird non-ASCII, that can be done too. ;-)