Re: short assumed (was: alternates (was: What should go into 1.5.7?))
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 01:50:04AM +0100, Alain Bench wrote:
> On Thursday, February 3, 2005 at 12:29:44 AM +0900, Tamotsu Takahashi wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 01:03:42AM +0100, Alain Bench wrote:
> [patch-1.5.7.tt+tamo.short_assumed_file_charset.3]
> >> Quick check gives legacy perfect, Vincent mode perfect, my everyday
> >> settings OK. Bravo, well done. Still have to study masking on UTF-8:
> >> Seems to be a "?" or U+FFFD masking char minor inconsistency.
> > not in my code but in mutt_convert_string().
> > - if (mutt_is_utf8 (to))
> > - outrepl = "\357\277\275";
> > Could anyone explain what "\357\277\275" is?
>
> The UTF-8 three bytes representation of U+FFFD character (???):
>
> | <UFFFD> /xef/xbf/xbd REPLACEMENT CHARACTER
Thanks for your information.
Then,
Why does it prevent mutt_convert_string() from masking unconvertible chars?
Or it doesn't? -- i.e. my UTF-8 settings were simply wrong?
Can you investigate the problem further?
> > Is it really necessary here?
>
> No. But it may seem logical to use it to replace unconvertables,
> where available, in all sorts of Unicode, in GB18030... Discussable.
Okay, I'm going to study charsets and try to understand the problem.
But I hope someone else will fix it. (Edmund?)
I know nothing about Unicode.
Even if the problem was my fault,
$assumed_charset and $file_charset are much better than nothing. :)
It correctly handles invalid headers in almost all cases.
(And the current mutt doesn't, at all.)
I wish they will be added to the CVS code soon.
> | Forwarding. I hope this is just a delay, but I haven't received this
> | message so far.
>
> Thanks. No delay, just blackhole. My preceding mail was also
> impacted: You saw it because I <bounce>d it to you after a day. And
> another mail in another thread was also blackholed. Changing MFT.
Hmm, very mysterious.
--
tamo