Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?

[Jason Rumney]

Dave Love wrote:

> I would have expected them to have iso10646 fonts if they are using
> utf-8 (for the sake of applications other than Emacs) but maybe that
> isn't the case.

I think the problem is not that they don't have iso10646 fonts, it is
that the iso10646 fonts they do have do not contain any of the double
width characters, including double width roman that is in the 2500-33ff
range. Until Emacs gets a function to query which glyphs a font has (I
see such a function in emacs-unicode-2), then it is safer to use
localized fonts where possible instead of iso10646.