[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: display table for eight-bit-graphic
From: |
Kenichi Handa |
Subject: |
Re: display table for eight-bit-graphic |
Date: |
Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:20:00 +0900 (JST) |
User-agent: |
SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.2 (Yagi-Nishiguchi) APEL/10.2 Emacs/21.2.92 (sparc-sun-solaris2.6) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) |
In article <address@hidden>, Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
> But, I've just found that standard-display-table is setup
> when we start Emacs with any locale of single byte charset
> (e.g. iso-8859-1). It seems that it is done intentionally
> by set-locale-environment as below.
> The reason for this is probably for the sake of unibyte buffers.
> This way, people who don't like MULE and use Emacs in unibyte
> mode with European character sets get the same behavior as before.
I don't think so. See this comment again:
;; If default-enable-multibyte-characters is nil,
;; we are using single-byte characters,
;; so the display table and terminal coding system are irrelevant.
(when default-enable-multibyte-characters
(set-display-table-and-terminal-coding-system language-name))
It seesm that the intention is to use the display table for
multibyte buffers.
> In the past, this code only affected unibyte buffers because those
> character codes 128-255 normally only appeared in them. But nowadays,
> all those codes are normal in multibyte buffers too. The display
> table treats each code the same way regardless of whether it comes
> from a unibyte buffer or a multibyte buffer.
Yes. I don't object to the currently behaviour of display
table itself. If one really wants to see
eight-bit-control/graphic chars in a multibyte buffer by
some glyph, it's ok to use display table as he wishes.
What I object is to setting up the display table as now by default.
address@hidden (Kai Großjohann) writes:
> "Ehud Karni" <address@hidden> writes:
>> I agree. For persons in the ISO-8859-x languages, the 8 bit graphics
>> is much better than the octal representation.
> I do not agree that displaying the graphics is better.
> It might seem so at first sight, but there are problems later on: for
> instance, you can't search for the 8bit graphics characters by typing
> Latin-1 characters, and people will surely be *very* surprised that
> they can't find their characters!
I agree with that. Showing different characters by the same
glyph is the source of confusion at least for novice users.
First of all, 8-bit characters should not appear in a
multibyte buffer usually. It it does, mainly it's because
of a bug of some program, on in a case that it should be
treated as raw bytes, not as characters. In both cases, it
is better that they are not displayed as graphics.
> Maybe it would be useful to highlight the graphics characters in some
> way so that it is clear that they aren't normal characters.
I'm not sure that is a good idea. Highlighting means many
things. Octal displaying is far better to indicate that
they aren't normal characters.
---
Ken'ichi HANDA
address@hidden