[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug? |
Date: |
06 Oct 2003 11:29:25 +0900 |
Jason Rumney <address@hidden> writes:
> > 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.
Yeah, that's definitely the case, and it's not just a problem with
double-width characters -- the coverage of many iso10646 fonts seems
completely crap.
E.g., see a post by `Danilo Segan' on this list. It apparently contains
cyrillic characters encoded in UTF-8, which emacs dutifully tries to
render using an iso10646 font, but show up as square boxes on my
system...
Here's the output of `C-u C-x =', in case anyone is interested:
character: с (01212141, 332897, 0x51461, U+0441)
charset: mule-unicode-0100-24ff
(Unicode characters of the range U+0100..U+24FF.)
code point: 40 97
syntax: w which means: word
category: y:Cyrillic
buffer code: 0x9C 0xF4 0xA8 0xE1
file code: 0x9C 0xF4 0xA8 0xE1 (encoded by coding system raw-text-unix)
display: by this font (glyph code)
-bitstream-bitstream vera sans
mono-medium-r-normal--16-122-95-95-c-100-iso10646-1 (0x441)
-Miles
--
`Suppose Korea goes to the World Cup final against Japan and wins,' Moon said.
`All the past could be forgiven.' [NYT]
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Dave Love, 2003/10/01
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Kenichi Handa, 2003/10/01
- 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 <=
- 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
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Dave Love, 2003/10/10
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?, Kenichi Handa, 2003/10/13