[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?
From: |
Kenichi Handa |
Subject: |
Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug? |
Date: |
Tue, 7 Oct 2003 08:18:25 +0900 (JST) |
User-agent: |
SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.2 (Yagi-Nishiguchi) APEL/10.2 Emacs/21.3 (sparc-sun-solaris2.6) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) |
In article <address@hidden>, Miles Bader <address@hidden> writes:
> Miles Bader <address@hidden> writes:
>> Yeah, that's definitely the case, and it's not just a problem with
>> double-width characters -- the coverage of many iso10646 fonts seems
>> completely crap.
> BTW, does this mean that the new unicode emacs will have problems
> rendering many charsets that are currently displayed properly by emacs?
No. In emacs-unicode, we can assign multiple fonts for each
script, charset, or a range of character codes, and Emacs
selects one that has a requested glyph and has the highest
priority depending on the current langauge environment.
---
Ken'ichi HANDA
address@hidden
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Dave Love, 2003/10/01
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Kenichi Handa, 2003/10/01
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Dave Love, 2003/10/03
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Jason Rumney, 2003/10/03
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Miles Bader, 2003/10/05
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Miles Bader, 2003/10/06
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Jason Rumney, 2003/10/06
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?,
Kenichi Handa <=
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/10/07
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Dave Love, 2003/10/07
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Dave Love, 2003/10/07
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Kenichi Handa, 2003/10/06
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Dave Love, 2003/10/10
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Kenichi Handa, 2003/10/13