David Maus <dm...@ictsoc.de> writes: > Sebastian Rose wrote: >>Is there a reason for this distinction between multibyte and unibyte? >>I favour the "shotgun-approach" if not. It's bullet-proof. > >>The JavaScript function `encodeURIComponent()' encodes the German Umlaut >>`ü' as `%C3%B6' regardless of the sources encoding actually. That's why >>I wrote the two functions `org-protocol-unhex-string' and >>`org-protocol-unhex-compound' (s. org-protocol.el). > > Ah, yes. From my understandig of the RFC %C3%BC is a valid > representation of the "ü" character. > > I do not yet fully understand > how to unescape such a representation. E.g. Is %C3%BC a hexencoded > multibyte char or a succession of two singlebyte chars?
It's a hexencoded multibyte char. JavaScript implementations seem to turn non-ascii singlebyte chars into multibyte chars first, then encode the result. This means if a page is iso-8859-1 encoded (singlebyte `ü'), JavaScript will recode the `ü'. It's funny, but that's what I found when writing org-protocol.el `org-protocol-unhex-string' and `org-protocol-unhex-compound' decode such a representation. The trick is in the utf-8 encoding itself. If a byte starts with a 1, another byte will follow. The number of leading `1's denotes the amount of bytes used for one character. On a GNU/Linux system try sh$ man utf-8 Sebastian _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
