Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?

[Dave Love]

Jason Rumney <address@hidden> writes:

> 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,

I meant one with the appropriate repertoire.

> 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.

See TODO, I think.  However, checking the large number of
tiny-repertoire fonts that are randomly encoded as iso10646 that you
might have under XFree86, for instance, seems like bad news.  You at
least have to load them to extract information.

[The issue of which fonts you use is actually orthogonal to which
charsets you decode into, as long as you have the translation tables
available.  The CCL for the font encoding may not exist currently in
cases where it would be useful, but it is trivial to provide.  See
examples which update `font-ccl-encoder-alist'.]