[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Possible UTF-8 CJK Regressions in Terminal Emulators
From: |
Dave Love |
Subject: |
Re: Possible UTF-8 CJK Regressions in Terminal Emulators |
Date: |
Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:02:07 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) |
Kenichi Handa <address@hidden> writes:
>> Absolutely! Then we can say "utf-8 is (almost) completely
>> supported"... I think this is a very important thing.
>
> I think "completely" is still too strong even with preceding
> "(almost)".
I know what you mean, but I think that's the sort of thing that
encourages the established user confusion over encoding issues.
UTF-8 per se is fully supported up to some limit on the code point.
(I hope that's as large as the Emacs 22 maximum codepoint, but I don't
remember.) Whether or not valid unicodes can be decoded into a
character Emacs can actually encode/display/input properly is a
different matter, and the feature should affect all relevant CCL
coding systems, especially UTF-16.
> Perhaps "utf-8 support is fairly good" or
> "Unicode BMP support is fairly good".
The latter is much better. (Exceptions include at least: various
complex scripts, much of the CJK space (little used?), reliable
display of CJK e.g. with XFree86 10646-encoded fonts, locale support
(including customization of the font encodings preferred), and BIDI.)
Re: Possible UTF-8 CJK Regressions in Terminal Emulators, Dave Love, 2004/06/08
Re: Possible UTF-8 CJK Regressions in Terminal Emulators, Kenichi Handa, 2004/06/11