[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#3452: 23.0.94; display

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: bug#3452: 23.0.94; display
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:48:53 -0400

> From: Kenichi Handa <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 10:51:14 +0900
> Cc: address@hidden
> Reply-To: Kenichi Handa <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> On terminal, if a zero-width character doesn't follow a base
> character, Emacs composes that character by prepending SPACE
> hoping that the terminal treats that zero-width character as
> zero-width too.

So these characters should be currently displayed as SPACE?

Is it a good idea to rely on the terminal in this situation?  Do we
know for a fact that many (most?) terminals indeed behave like that
with zero-width characters?

> > These characters are not supposed to be displayed at all,
> > they have no meaningful glyphs to show them.  They are just directives
> > to the bidirectional display engines about how to convert logical
> > order of characters to visual order.
> But as Emacs 23 doesn't support bidi, at least we should
> make it edittable, don't we?

Yes, definitely.  (Btw, I think make them editable even when Emacs
does support bidirectional editing.)

> > Btw, I don't understand how these characters are related to
> > compositions.  They should not be composed with anything, they always
> > stand for themselves.
> Currently they are not composed with any other surrounding
> characters (but only with an artificially prepended SPACE),
> so we can say that they stand for themselves.

That's good, I think.

> To conclude, I think there's not that much we can do for
> this situation.  I think the current behaviour of
> gnome-terminal (displaying standalone U+202D as a space of
> width 1) is a bug.

If other terminals behave correctly, I would agree.  But if not,
perhaps we need to work around this, if possible.  For example, we
could have an entry in display tables for these characters.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]