[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: X11 Compound Text vs ISO 2022
From: |
David De La Harpe Golden |
Subject: |
Re: X11 Compound Text vs ISO 2022 |
Date: |
Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:38:18 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100620 Icedove/3.0.5 |
> A number of characters are output in '^[$-1'; such as:
> (encode-coding-string "ℜ" 'compound-text) ; U+211C BLACK-LETTER CAPITAL R
> "^[$-1\365\334^[-A"
> (encode-coding-string "ʻ" 'compound-text) ; U+02BB MODIFIER LETTER
TURNED COMMA
> "^[$-1\244\333^[-A"
> That is encoded in mule-unicode-0100-24ff, essentially unknown outside
> Emacs.
But actually I think emacs should be using using coding system
compound-text-with-extensions by default, not coding system
compound-text? At least if you haven't customized
selection-coding-system.
That does give different results to your examples in some cases:
(encode-coding-string "ℜ" 'compound-text-with-extensions)
"%G\342\204\234%@"
(encode-coding-string "ʻ" 'compound-text-with-extensions)
"%G\312\273%@"
- X11 Compound Text vs ISO 2022, James Cloos, 2010/07/06
- Re: X11 Compound Text vs ISO 2022, David De La Harpe Golden, 2010/07/06
- Re: X11 Compound Text vs ISO 2022, James Cloos, 2010/07/06
- Re: X11 Compound Text vs ISO 2022, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2010/07/06
- Re: X11 Compound Text vs ISO 2022, James Cloos, 2010/07/07
- Re: X11 Compound Text vs ISO 2022, James Cloos, 2010/07/07
- Re: X11 Compound Text vs ISO 2022, David De La Harpe Golden, 2010/07/07
- Re: X11 Compound Text vs ISO 2022, James Cloos, 2010/07/14
Re: X11 Compound Text vs ISO 2022,
David De La Harpe Golden <=
Re: X11 Compound Text vs ISO 2022, Kenichi Handa, 2010/07/29