[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ucs-normalize and diacritics
From: |
K. Handa |
Subject: |
Re: ucs-normalize and diacritics |
Date: |
Sun, 05 Aug 2018 22:58:43 +0900 |
In article <address@hidden>, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> > (encode-char #xa0 'tis620-2533) => 32
> >
> > which is simply wrong.
> How important is that discrepancy? After all, tis620-2533 doesn't
> have the #xa0 character, so the situation above should never happen,
> right?
?? It happend when I wrote the code above. How can you tell that
no one try the same thing?
> OTOH, it is strange to have two charsets that are identical
> except for one character.
However strange it is, it is the fact that those two chararcter sets are
different at that point. Please see this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Industrial_Standard_620-2533
> Yes, it could be fixed, but why do we need to jump through hoops to
> keep one more charset, when we already have a charset that is
> identical to it except for one character?
The reason of having tis620-2533 was that it was added before
iso-8859-11. And, there have been no positive reason of deleting
tis620-2533 even after we added iso-8859-11. It is better to completely
drop the support of tis620-2533 (i.e. do not keep it as an alias for
iso-8859-11) than make Emacs tell a lie, but I think it is much better
to modify describe-char.
---
K. Handa
address@hidden
Re: ucs-normalize and diacritics, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/08/03
- Re: ucs-normalize and diacritics,
K. Handa <=