Re: BIG5-HKSCS?

[Kenichi Handa]

In article <address@hidden>, Simon Josefsson <address@hidden> writes:
> Good enough for me.  Do you have an opinion on whether falling back to
> BIG5 when BIG5-HKSCS is not available [in Gnus, for displaying
> incoming e-mail in BIG-5HKSCS], is a reasonable behaviour?

> I browsed the BIG5-HKSCS specification, and it appear to add lots of
> characters (~1500) but it didn't seem to alter any

Hmmm, if that is true, it's possbile to support it in the
current Emacs.  Emacs repsents Big5 characters in two
charsets chinese-big5-1 and chinese-big5-2 internally.  The
former contains Big5 chars #xA140 .. #xC8FE, the latter
#xC940..#xFEFE.  That means that chinese-big5-1 still has a
room for that additional 1500 character.

> , and I can't tell
> whether the additions are critical or just rarely used symbols.  I
> doubt rendering it as BIG5 is worse than QP, though, which is the
> current behaviour.

If BIG5-HKSCS surely just adds characters to BIG5, I think
it is reasonable to fallback to BIG5.  But, as I wrote
above, it seems possible to support the whole BIG5-HKSCS in
the current Emacs with a faily small effort.   Could you
please wait for a while?

---
Ken'ichi HANDA
address@hidden