[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: |
07 Oct 2003 05:00:32 +0900 |
Miles Bader <address@hidden> writes:
> 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.
BTW, does this mean that the new unicode emacs will have problems
rendering many charsets that are currently displayed properly by emacs?
-Miles
--
We live, as we dream -- alone....
- 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, 2003/10/05
- Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?,
Miles Bader <=
- 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