#3925: Always treat iso-8859-1 as cp1252
--------------------------+----------------------
Reporter: gahr2 | Owner: mutt-dev
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone:
Component: charset | Version:
Resolution: | Keywords:
--------------------------+----------------------
Comment (by kevin8t8):
> I'd argue that the odds of receiving an iso-8859-1 mail with chars in
> range 0x80-0x9f and wanting to "use" them as control characters is close
> to zero. Am I missing any use case?
Yes, the one where the sender intentionally has these in the contents of
the email, and their mail client has the charset correctly set
to iso-8859-1.
> I really think a trade-off must be chosen between purity and user
> friendliness. Just to figure out that a charset-hook is needed, and
> which one, takes time and requires a fair grasp of the problem. Without
> a proper understanding of charsets and overlaps thereof, a typical user
> will just think that mutt can't properly display some
> characters. Anyway, this is not about right or wrong, but it's a
> decision: does mutt require this level of understanding from the typical
> user?
The typical Mutt user now-a-days does not have to deal with this issue
(i.e, an Outlook 12.0 encoding bug), so I disagree with the framing of
the question.
I would also argue the mere presence of the charset-hook answers your
question for you.
However, to the broader question of user friendliness, yes Mutt does
require time and understanding to set up and configure to your liking.
Yes, Mutt generally prefers correctness, but provides tools and a
plethora of options to adjust its behavior (e.g., the charset-hook).
> Perhaps the approach taken by the patch is too invasive. I would be
> happy to have `charset-hook ^iso-8859-1$ cp1252` in the default muttrc.
Sorry, but the context of my statement in comment:3 were if the problem
were rampant.
As the newest committer to Mutt, I try to follow its general philosophy
and culture, and when one of the older committers (e.g. Vincent) takes
the time to comment, I try to listen carefully. I have no doubt this
issue was debated 10-15 years ago when it was perhaps a more prevalent
problem, with the outcome being as it is.
So, no, I'm not seriously considering adding this to the default muttrc.
Fortunately, Mutt users **are** free and empowered to make such a change
to their own muttrc, if they desire. :-)
--
Ticket URL: <https://dev.mutt.org/trac/ticket/3925#comment:5>
Mutt <http://www.mutt.org/>
The Mutt mail user agent
