oliver doepner wrote: > > ================================================================== > This message was posted as a talkback at >/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-10-22-010-20-NW-SW > ================================================================== > Hi, > I am happy to see GNU Emacs moving forward this > way. I will try it soon. Thanks for the work of > all the developers!! > > What about the <b>Unicode</b> support ? > > I was really waiting for the MULE-UCS sort of stuff > to become a core part of my favourite Editor. I heard > that the internal MULE representation scheme was to > be replaced by UTF-8 ?!
I've been using Emacs 21 for the past couple of pre-releases and I have recently converted a substantial amount of my work from Latin-3 to UTF-8. The internal representation is still the same as it was. One of the downsides of that is that the characters from the ISO 8859 character sets other than 8859-1 (Latin-1) have not been unified with the Unicode characters. Thus, the "same character" from 8859-3 (Latin-3) and UTF-8 is not the same character internally. That causes two problems. First, your input mode must produce the correct characters. I use a version of latin-ltx that I modified to use the latin-3-prefix key sequences for input. The other problem is that characters from an 8859-x buffer (other than 8859-1) and the same characters from a UTF-8 buffer don't cut and paste. However, I have been successfully using Latin-3 for some older stuff (.po files from the Translation Project) alongside UTF-8 for other files. I have occasionally tripped myself up, but it works pretty well. If you have specific questions, I be happy to take a shot at answering them. -- D. Dale Gulledge, Sr. Programmer, [EMAIL PROTECTED] C, C++, Perl, Unix (AIX, Linux), Oracle, Java, Internationalization (i18n), Awk. - Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/