[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?
From: |
Kenichi Handa |
Subject: |
Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug? |
Date: |
Thu, 2 Oct 2003 10:08:15 +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:
>> I think the reason why they are excluded from the
>> translation is that they are representable by the charset
>> mule-unicode-e000-ffff, thus there's no need of translation.
> That was part of the reason for it -- the hash-based translation code
> is only relevant because we more-or-less used up the code space for
> the BMP. I also chose the boundaries to avoid breaking the region
> between the mule-unicode and CJK charsets.
Sorry, I don't understand the meaning of the last sentence.
>> It seems to be a reasonable decision, but considering that
>> most users don't have an ISO10646-1 font containing those
>> glyphs,
> I thought they typically did if they had 10646 fonts at all. Is the
> problem that in recent XFree86, for instance, the double-width
> characters are in different fonts which have `adstyl' `ja' or `ko'?
Ah, right, they have double-width glyphs for those chars.
But, I think there are still many those who are not using
the recent XFree86, or who have not installed those fonts.
> As far as I remember, the fontset code doesn't deal with that yet.
> (So many special cases, sigh.)
Right. So, even for XFree86 users, to utilize those fonts,
we need extra work.
>> and that those characters can also be regarded as
>> CJK components (only CJK users uses them), I think we had
>> better not exclude them from the translation.
> I'm not really convinced, but I don't feel strongly about it. (If the
> extra charsets hadn't been added before mule-unicode, we'd just have
> covered the BMP with more mule-unicode ones.)
And if I knew it took that long time to release the code
that contains mule-unicode charsets, I'd implemented a
single 3-dimensional charset that covers almost all Unicode
characters (Charset-ID 159 is not yet used).
>> So, I suggest changing the above line (and similar lines in
>> the other subst-XXX.el) to:
>>
>> (if (>= unicode #x2e80)
>> (puthash unicode char ucs-unicode-to-mule-cjk))
>>
>> and modify ccl-decode-mule-utf-8 to check translation also
>> for those characters.
>>
>> Dave, what do you think? Does such a change leads to any
>> problem?
> As far as I remember, it includes too much, and you end up displaying
> some characters double width that probably shouldn't be, but I don't
> remember which. How about including the ranges of the double-width
> Western characters and the high CJK stuff explicitly? I guess it
> doesn't expand the tables greatly.
Ok, I've just installed a code that include U+FF00..U+FFEF
in the decode tables.
Now, in utf-translate-cjk mode:
(decode-coding-string
(encode-coding-string "NECエレクトロニクス(株)" 'utf-8)
'utf-8)
=> "NECエレクトロニクス(株)"
---
Ken'ichi HANDA
address@hidden
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Dave Love, 2003/10/01
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?,
Kenichi Handa <=
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Dave Love, 2003/10/03
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Jason Rumney, 2003/10/03
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Miles Bader, 2003/10/05
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Miles Bader, 2003/10/06
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Jason Rumney, 2003/10/06
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Kenichi Handa, 2003/10/06
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/10/07
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Dave Love, 2003/10/07
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Dave Love, 2003/10/07
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Kenichi Handa, 2003/10/06