From xemacs-m  Wed Jun  4 07:40:48 1997
Received: from mail.cis.ohio-state.edu (mail.cis.ohio-state.edu [164.107.8.55])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA01291
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 07:40:48 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from calico.cis.ohio-state.edu (calico.cis.ohio-state.edu [164.107.142.11]) by mail.cis.ohio-state.edu (8.6.7/8.6.4) with ESMTP id IAA28918; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 08:40:33 -0400
Received: (ware@localhost) by calico.cis.ohio-state.edu (8.8.0/8.6.4) id IAA12977; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 08:40:32 -0400 (EDT)
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Emacs, XEmacs and MULE
From: Pete Ware <ware@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 04 Jun 1997 08:40:29 -0400
Message-ID: <vwmenai5yo2.fsf@calico.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Lines: 13
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.51/XEmacs 20.2(beta5)

Not having any real use for MULE, I've been quietly accepting it's
adoption into XEmacs.  At a high level, it seems like the right
solution to be able to handle multiple languages at the same time.
Since I can compile XEmacs without it, I'm willing to wait until
either the software or the hardware gets fast enough it isn't
noticable.

After listening to Naggum's complaints, I'm looking for a little bit
of reassurance.  Are all of his complaints do to Emacs not using a
layer of abstraction?  Is MULE introducing a file encoding that no one 
else in the world uses (this is the question that really worries me)?

--pete

