[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
lynx-dev Re: 8-bit characters in EDITTEXTAREA
From: |
Kim DeVaughn |
Subject: |
lynx-dev Re: 8-bit characters in EDITTEXTAREA |
Date: |
Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:33:26 -0800 |
On Thu, Feb 11, 1999, Leonid Pauzner (address@hidden) said:
|
| > OK ... a cast to (unsigned char) is what we'll do.
|
| more appropriate check should reject characters
| from 127..(LYlowest_eightbit[current_char_set] - 1) range
| since we are working in display charset which may be inconsistent with locale
| so iscntrl() may return a wrong result on any platform.
Let me be sure I understand what you're suggesting.
You're saying that chars in that range should be rejected (actually,
translated to a "benign" char such as a "."), in *addition* to the
usual 0x00-0x1f control chars. Correct?
OK. But grep'ing about, I see references to "old-style mapping" (vs. the
"chartrans mechanism") in code such as (from LYCharSets.c):
/*
* INSTRUCTIONS for adding new character sets which do not have
* Unicode tables.
[...]
*
* [We hope you need not correct/add old-style mapping
* as in ISO_LATIN1[] or SevenBitApproximations[] any more -
* it works now via new chartrans mechanism, but kept for
compatibility only:
* we should cleanup the stuff, but this is not so easy...]
and
/*
* Add the code of the the lowest character with the high bit set
* that can be directly displayed.
* The order of LYCharSets and LYlowest_eightbit MUST be the same.
*
* (If charset have chartrans unicode table,
* LYlowest_eightbit will be verified/modified anyway.)
*/
PUBLIC int LYlowest_eightbit[MAXCHARSETS]={
160, /* ISO Latin 1 */
Can I assume [I hate that word] that LYlowest_eightbit[current_char_set]
by now always has ordinal of the 1st high-order-bit-set character, and
that no "special casing" is required to accomodate "the old way" vs. "the
new way"?
If so, I can easily add a check to see if such chars are in the edited
data, and convert them if that should happen.
I presume [better than assume :-) ] that such a check would NOT apply
to EBCDIC platforms. BTW, anyone know why there is no character set
definition for EBCDIC (that I could find, anyway)?
/kim
- Re: lynx-dev Re: 8-bit characters in EDITTEXTAREA, dickey, 1999/02/10
- Re: lynx-dev Re: 8-bit characters in EDITTEXTAREA, Laura Eaves, 1999/02/10
- Re: lynx-dev Re: 8-bit characters in EDITTEXTAREA, Laura Eaves, 1999/02/11
- Re: lynx-dev Re: 8-bit characters in EDITTEXTAREA, Laura Eaves, 1999/02/11
- Re: lynx-dev Re: 8-bit characters in EDITTEXTAREA, Laura Eaves, 1999/02/12
- Re: lynx-dev Re: 8-bit characters in EDITTEXTAREA, Laura Eaves, 1999/02/12