[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: MULE shows gibberish; now what?
From: |
Ilya Zakharevich |
Subject: |
Re: MULE shows gibberish; now what? |
Date: |
Sat, 28 Sep 2002 07:14:25 +0000 (UTC) |
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Kai
=?iso-8859-15?q?Gro=DFjohann?=
<Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE>], who wrote in article
<vafelbfw4cc.fsf@lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de>:
> >> > So it does not show which codepoint inside the font is chosen!
> >>
> >> You see "code point: 36", and you see that it is the right-hand part
> >> of the alphabet only. So 128+36=164 is the actual code point you want.
> >
> > *I* do not want any *codepoint*. What I want is that CYRILLIC CAPITAL R
> > is shown with a glyph which looks like `P', not like `A'.
>
> You said it doesn't show which codepoint is used, I showed you that
> you can compute the codepoint from what it shows. That's all.
>
> I'm sorry if there was a misunderstanding.
Stop being so defensive, it was my fault. I did not realize that MULE
is so primitive that it cannot use internationalization of fonts...
It can use only fonts "specifically crafted for Emacs purposes". ;-)
[I never saw any *document* using iso...-5...]
> > How would I know? Emacs case the info about the font, not me. One
> > cannot deduce the encoding from the name, but one can do it from the
> > character properties table.
>
> One cannot deduce the encoding from the name? I thought the encoding
> was in the very end of the long-font-name-with-lotsa-dashes.
xfontsel
Press on the second button from the right. You will see a lot of
possible components for this slot. About half of them are encoding
names. The rest looks like as ad hoc gibberish.
> In my understanding, telling Emacs "use the foo font to display
> gb2312 encoded characters" amounts to pretty much the same thing as
> telling Emacs "the foo font is in gb2312 encoding".
Well, this is not enough. A font in gb2312 encoding *has* cyrillic
glyphs. Will Emacs use them if they are present?
> > *menuFont: -*-courier-medium-r-*-*-18-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> > Emacs*Font: -misc-fixed-bold-*-*-*-*-140-75-75-*-*-*-1
> > Emacs*paneFont: -*-courier-bold-r-*-*-18-180-*-*-*-*-*-*
> > Emacs*selectionFont: -*-courier-bold-r-*-*-16-180-*-*-*-*-*-*
> > Emacs.shell.menu.popup.font: -*-courier-bold-r-*-*-18-180-*-*-*-*-*-*
> > Emacs.shell.pane.menubar.font: -*-courier-bold-r-*-*-16-180-*-*-*-*-*-*
>
> Okay, okay. Hm.
>
> But first things first. Now you know which font Emacs used to display
> the Cyrillic. Do you have any way of finding out the encoding
> of that font (with an X11 font editor, perhaps, or by running some
> other program)?
I can see the glyphs with xfd. Spending some time I may be able to
identify the glyph table with an encoding. But how will it help me?
> From the output of C-u C-x = you also know that Emacs thought the
> font was in iso-8859-5 encoding (because Emacs used that font for
> that charset).
>
> I would like to verify at this point that the Cyrillic font is indeed
> in an encoding that is NOT iso-8859-5. Could you please do that?
Maybe the next week...
> Now let's assume that the font is really in the "wrong" encoding (ie,
> not in iso-8859-5). Now you need to tell Emacs to use a different
> font for iso-8859-5. This works with fontsets.
>
> I am ashamed to say that I've tried to read the documentation on
> fontsets and haven't been able to understand it. But Emacs works
> well for me, even without fontsets, so I didn't spend more than 2 or
> 3 minutes on understanding it.
>
> I'm sure that you can cook up a fontset specification that will tell
> Emacs to use a font that's right for iso-8859-5.
You seem pretty sure that there is such a font around. Given that it
useless for "direct use" (it is not used outside the Emacs-like niche,
so it is usable only with software which will remap stuff for display).
Ilya
- Re: MULE shows gibberish; now what?, (continued)
- Re: MULE shows gibberish; now what?, Ilya Zakharevich, 2002/09/24
- Re: MULE shows gibberish; now what?, Kai Großjohann, 2002/09/25
- Re: MULE shows gibberish; now what?, Ilya Zakharevich, 2002/09/25
- Re: MULE shows gibberish; now what?, Kai Großjohann, 2002/09/26
- Re: MULE shows gibberish; now what?, Ilya Zakharevich, 2002/09/26
- Re: MULE shows gibberish; now what?, Oliver Scholz, 2002/09/26
- Re: MULE shows gibberish; now what?, Kai Großjohann, 2002/09/27
- Re: MULE shows gibberish; now what?, Ilya Zakharevich, 2002/09/27
- Re: MULE shows gibberish; now what?, Kai Großjohann, 2002/09/27
- Re: MULE shows gibberish; now what?,
Ilya Zakharevich <=
- Re: MULE shows gibberish; now what?, Kai Großjohann, 2002/09/28
- Re: MULE shows gibberish; now what?, Ilya Zakharevich, 2002/09/29
- Re: MULE shows gibberish; now what?, Jason Rumney, 2002/09/30
- Re: MULE shows gibberish; now what?, Ilya Zakharevich, 2002/09/30
- Re: MULE shows gibberish; now what?, Jason Rumney, 2002/09/29
- Re: MULE shows gibberish; now what?, Ilya Zakharevich, 2002/09/26
- Re: MULE shows gibberish; now what?, Kai Großjohann, 2002/09/27
- Re: MULE shows gibberish; now what?, Ilya Zakharevich, 2002/09/27
- Re: MULE shows gibberish; now what?, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>, 2002/09/27
- Re: MULE shows gibberish; now what?, Ilya Zakharevich, 2002/09/28