Re: Possible UTF-8 CJK Regressions in Terminal Emulators

[Kenichi Handa]

In article <address@hidden>, Dave Love <address@hidden> writes:

> Kenichi Handa <address@hidden> writes:
> >> Absolutely!  Then we can say "utf-8 is (almost) completely
> >> supported"...  I think this is a very important thing.
> >
> > I think "completely" is still too strong even with preceding
> > "(almost)".

> I know what you mean, but I think that's the sort of thing that
> encourages the established user confusion over encoding issues.

> UTF-8 per se is fully supported up to some limit on the code point.
> (I hope that's as large as the Emacs 22 maximum codepoint, but I don't
> remember.)

No, the current support of UTF-8 is limitted to U+10FFFF
(the maximum Unicode character).

> Whether or not valid unicodes can be decoded into a
> character Emacs can actually encode/display/input properly is a
> different matter,

Ah, yes.  In that sense, we can say utf-8 encoding/decoding
is completely supportted.

> and the feature should affect all relevant CCL
> coding systems, especially UTF-16.

As surrogate pair was not handled well by UTF-16 converter,
I've just fixed it too (not yet installed, I'm now adding
comments in a code).  Untranslatable characters are decoded
into UTF-8 form represented by the sequence of
eight-bit-graphic/control characters (the same way as UTF-8
decoding, thus we can use utf-8-post-read-conversion).  The
UTF-16 encoder encodes such a sequence back to the origianl
UTF-16 form.  So, now the UTF-16 support is at the same
level as UTF-8.

---
Ken'ichi HANDA
address@hidden