In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Dyballa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am 04.04.2005 um 03:19 schrieb Kenichi Handa: >> The above script outputs raw bytes 0..255, which is not a >> valid utf-8 code expected in *shell* buffer. So, Emacs >> decodes them as raw-byte characters (i.e. characters >> belonging to charsets eight-bit-control and >> eight-bit-graphic). >> >> If you want to get iso-8859-13 characters in *shell* buffer, >> you must change the process coding systems of the buffer to >> iso-latin-7 by C-x RET p iso-latin-7 RET iso-latin-7 RET. > My script indeed produces only raw output, which, to become valid > UTF-8, would need an introductory C2 or C3 character. The question is: > why were these raw characters converted into valid UTF-8 They were not. Why do you think "those raw characters were converted into valid UTF-8"? You wrote: > In shell I only saw octal representation. So, those raw characters were NOT recognized as valid UTF-8, and thus not converted into normal Emacs characters. > and why was this not converted into ISO 8859-13 upon > inserting into the file buffer? As far as you are copying from a multibyte byffer to a multibyte buffer of Emacs, no character is converted upon inserting. > Or at least when saving the file? Because they are raw-byte characters. > My usual selection-coding-system seems to be > compound-text-with-extensions, open to accept anything. Why is selection-coding-system relevant to the current problem? --- Ken'ichi HANDA [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Emacs-pretest-bug mailing list Emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
