[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: BIG5-HKSCS?
From: |
Kenichi Handa |
Subject: |
Re: BIG5-HKSCS? |
Date: |
Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:34:07 +0900 (JST) |
In article <address@hidden>, Simon Josefsson <address@hidden> writes:
> Good enough for me. Do you have an opinion on whether falling back to
> BIG5 when BIG5-HKSCS is not available [in Gnus, for displaying
> incoming e-mail in BIG-5HKSCS], is a reasonable behaviour?
> I browsed the BIG5-HKSCS specification, and it appear to add lots of
> characters (~1500) but it didn't seem to alter any
Hmmm, if that is true, it's possbile to support it in the
current Emacs. Emacs repsents Big5 characters in two
charsets chinese-big5-1 and chinese-big5-2 internally. The
former contains Big5 chars #xA140 .. #xC8FE, the latter
#xC940..#xFEFE. That means that chinese-big5-1 still has a
room for that additional 1500 character.
> , and I can't tell
> whether the additions are critical or just rarely used symbols. I
> doubt rendering it as BIG5 is worse than QP, though, which is the
> current behaviour.
If BIG5-HKSCS surely just adds characters to BIG5, I think
it is reasonable to fallback to BIG5. But, as I wrote
above, it seems possible to support the whole BIG5-HKSCS in
the current Emacs with a faily small effort. Could you
please wait for a while?
---
Ken'ichi HANDA
address@hidden
- BIG5-HKSCS?, Simon Josefsson, 2003/11/12
- Re: BIG5-HKSCS?, Kenichi Handa, 2003/11/12
- Re: BIG5-HKSCS?, Simon Josefsson, 2003/11/13
- Re: BIG5-HKSCS?, Kenichi Handa, 2003/11/13
- Re: BIG5-HKSCS?, Simon Josefsson, 2003/11/13
- Re: BIG5-HKSCS?, Kenichi Handa, 2003/11/13
- Re: BIG5-HKSCS?, Oliver Scholz, 2003/11/13
- Re: BIG5-HKSCS?, Kenichi Handa, 2003/11/13
- Re: BIG5-HKSCS?, Oliver Scholz, 2003/11/14
- Re: BIG5-HKSCS?, Simon Josefsson, 2003/11/13
- eight-bit char handling in emacs-unicode, Kenichi Handa, 2003/11/13