[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Rmail and the raw-text coding system
From: |
Mark Lillibridge |
Subject: |
Re: Rmail and the raw-text coding system |
Date: |
Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:06:53 -0800 |
Stefan wrote:
> I (Mark) wrote:
> > It then decodes the BABYL message part:
>
> > ...
>
> > This process leaves the buffer as a unibyte buffer.
>
> The question for me is why did it choose raw-text here (which results
> indeed in a unibyte buffer)? It should have been emacs-mule.
I assume it did so because the buffer contained "invalid" code
points. Remember that loading raw-text then converting to multibyte can
(I believe) produce a buffer with essentially arbitrary bytes modulo no
unaccompanied continuation bytes. Presumably, the result can be
considered invalid by emacs-mule.
- Mark
- Rmail and the raw-text coding system, Mark Lillibridge, 2011/01/14
- Re: Rmail and the raw-text coding system, Stefan Monnier, 2011/01/14
- Re: Rmail and the raw-text coding system,
Mark Lillibridge <=
- Re: Rmail and the raw-text coding system, Stefan Monnier, 2011/01/14
- Re: Rmail and the raw-text coding system, Mark Lillibridge, 2011/01/16
- Re: Rmail and the raw-text coding system, Stefan Monnier, 2011/01/17
- Re: Rmail and the raw-text coding system, Mark Lillibridge, 2011/01/17
- Re: Rmail and the raw-text coding system, Stefan Monnier, 2011/01/17
- Re: Rmail and the raw-text coding system, Mark Lillibridge, 2011/01/19