Stefan Monnier skrev: >>> Also IIRC a perfectly valid utf-8 buffer may contain eight-bit-* chars, use >>> to keep track of valid unicode chars that have no corresponding character in >>> emacs-mule. So the presence of eight-bit-* chars does not imply that the >>> utf-8 encoded form of the text will contain an invalid utf-8 byte sequence. >>> > > >> Yes, but such eight-bit-* chars can be detected by checking >> `untranslated-utf-8' property. >> > > Sure, but the current code doesn't do that. > > >>>> And, if Emacs owns a unibyte string, perhaps the right thing >>>> is to make it multibyte according to the current >>>> lang. env. (by string-make-multibyte) at first, then encode >>>> it by utf-8. >>>> > > >>> That sounds terribly fragile/buggy. >>> > > >> Then, what do you think Emacs should do in such a case? >> > > I think we can't know what should be done, so we should strive for > simplicity and try to avoid losing information. I.e. just return the > unibyte string as-is. >
That was the problem the original report was about. Gtk+-applications print big warnings. And there is no agreed upon selection type that represents just bytes. W.r.t the standards, Emacs has two choices, return a valid UTF8-string or don't return anything at all. I'm beginning to think the second option is the best. Jan D. _______________________________________________ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug