[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: MML charset tag regression
From: |
Kenichi Handa |
Subject: |
Re: MML charset tag regression |
Date: |
Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:16:34 +0900 (JST) |
User-agent: |
SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.2 (Yagi-Nishiguchi) APEL/10.2 Emacs/21.2.92 (sparc-sun-solaris2.6) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) |
In article <address@hidden>, Dave Love <address@hidden> writes:
> Kenichi Handa <address@hidden> writes:
>> But, ctext itself doesn't have to support it, i.e., decode it as the
>> sender's intention.
> But then you might as well ignore extended segments entirely, and I
> assume it must decode it if the name for the segment is registered.
> However, the CTEXT spec says that you must use extended segments
> for private charsets.
>> It's impossible to know about all possible
>> encoding names that will be used in the extended segment.
> Sure. I was holding off changes in this area until I convinced myself
> what is the best way to do the heuristic conversion between external
> charset names and Emacs names. (Sorry, I could have saved you the
> work.) At least you have a chance of interpreting the names, but you
> can't know anything about private charset definitions, even if they
> were allowed. Extended segment names are supposed to be registered
> and follow font encoding names, of course.
I'm sorry but I can't see how, you think, the current ctext
and ctext-with-extensions should be changed. Could you
give me a concrete proposal?
>> Surely it's not. ctext and compound-text-with-extensions
>> encode text differently. But, I don't think
>> compound-text-with-extensions implies an extended version of
>> ctext.
> It does to me, and that was clearly intended.
Perhaps the last words "-with-extentions" was wrong. I
thought it can mean "-using-extended-segment". But, of
course I'm not a native English speaker, thus ...
> It has been changed recently, but in my Emacs it says:
> x -- compound-text-with-extensions (alias: x-ctext-with-extensions
> ctext-with-extensions)
> Compound text encoding with ICCCM Extended Segment extensions.
This is already changed to;
Compound text encoding with extended segments.
> and the NEWS entry says only some versions of X use extended segments.
Isn't it correct?
> Giving the impression of not following the CTEXT spec can't help with
> trying to persuade someone else to fix their problems, as I hope you
> can do.
> Anyhow the point is that whatever's called compound-text should deal
> with extended segments.
If "deal with" means "correctly decode as senders
intention", it's impossible. If "deal with" just means
"at least don't collapse", now they do.
---
Ken'ichi HANDA
address@hidden