[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: |
Thu, 08 Jul 2010 01:24:14 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100620 Icedove/3.0.5 |
On 07/07/10 20:51, James Cloos wrote:
I misstated that. Ctext should still use the 8859 sets where possible,
and the GB_2312-80, JIS_X0208-1983, JIS_X0208-1990, KS_C_5601-1987 and
CNS11643-1992 sets(but not JIS_X0213) for characters covered by Emacs'
Modifying function mule.el/ctext-non-standard-encodings-table with, say*:
(not (string-match "jisx0213" (symbol-name charset)))
in its charset-list-walking dolist does exclude that in particular from
consideration, yielding:
(encode-coding-string "•" 'compound-text-with-extensions)
"%G\342\200\242%@"
... But excluding ones that are not expected to work may be contrary
given a shortlist of ones that can be expected to work (I'm still a bit
unclear why adding a :charset-list with a shortlist to definition of
compound-text-with-extensions didn't work, maybe something isn't getting
bound somewhere.)
[* similar to existing line for excluding cns11643, which I think was
because "big5" was preferred, see
"bzr log -r52413.1.843"/"bzr diff -r52413.1.842..52413.1.843"]
Re: X11 Compound Text vs ISO 2022, David De La Harpe Golden, 2010/07/06
Re: X11 Compound Text vs ISO 2022, Kenichi Handa, 2010/07/29