[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: 23.0.60; describe-char gives wrong information

From: Kenichi Handa
Subject: Re: 23.0.60; describe-char gives wrong information
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:51:17 +0900
User-agent: SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.2 (Yagi-Nishiguchi) APEL/10.2 Emacs/23.0.60 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)

In article <address@hidden>, Peter Dyballa <address@hidden> writes:

> > For the moment, I don't have a good idea about how to order
> > character sets that are outside of users locale.  Perhaps,
> > if the character doesn't belong to any of:
> >  (get-language-info current-language-environment 'charset)
> > the "preferred charset" line should not be showned.

> This returns in my UTF-8 *scratch* buffer an absurd

>       (iso-8859-1)

Ah, providing a good default setting for various locale
(especially for UTF-8 based ones) has been in my todo-list
long.  I once proposed a method of generating a proper
language environment from locale, but it was rejected.

> I never set a language-environment because I had found with others  
> that this is bringing me back into the world of 7 bit encodings  
> (maybe also 8 bit).

> >
> > By the way, in emacs-unicode-2, the default fontset is not
> > yet tuned well for Unicode.  For instance, for Latin,
> > currently only these fonts are registered:
> >
> > "ISO8859-1" "ISO8859-2" "ISO8859-3" "ISO8859-4" "ISO8859-9"
> > "ISO8859-10" "ISO8859-13" "ISO8859-14" "ISO8859-15"
> > "VISCII1.1-1"

> Why is ISO 8859-16 missing?

Just forgotten to be added.  I've just installed a fix.

> Arial Unicode has U+1F48. It does not have it in a gb18030.2000-0  
> font encoding, because this code point is not defined in  
> GB18030-2000. So one of the first mistakes is to assume U+1F48 is  
> defined in GB18030-2000

The charset GB18030-2000 surely contains U+1F48.  Actually
it contains all Unicode characters.

> and another one is to use a partial font  
> encoding like gb18030.2000-0

What do you mean by "partial font encoding"?  Anyway, as I
wrote before, the bug of selecting a font that doesn't have
the character should be fixed now.

Kenichi Handa

reply via email to

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