Re: Make Unicode bugs release critical?
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 02:30:24PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2011-02-11 15:33:49 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:14:42AM +0100, Miroslav Kure wrote:
> > > > However, I'm curious: is there a lot of software that is broken with
> > > > Unicode, particularly with the UTF-8 encoding? I can't remember anything
> > > > much in recent times.
>
> "less" has problems with new Unicode characters (bug 597918).
Unicode 6.0 came out in october 2010, well after Squeeze's freeze, so you
can't expect support for new characters already. There are in no fonts
shipped with squeeze, so not recognizing the characters as valid is not a
big problem.
Less shouldn't maintain a private copy of character properties if all that
data is already present in libc -- but guess what, wcwidth(0x1F4A9) and
iswprint() don't know them too.
So oh well, Squeeze won't display such vital characters as 🐈 "kitten"[1],
👻 "ghost", 👹 "japanese ogre" or 💩 "pile of shit". Gotta invest in a
crystal ball that will tell us what new characters will be.
[1]. To see my examples, you can grab:
http://angband.pl/debian/pool/main/t/ttf-ancient-fonts/ttf-ancient-fonts_2.52-1.0kb1_all.deb
(newer than the version in unstable, Gürkan Sengün's version is
404-compliant, let's poke him so we have _one_ Unicode 6.0 font in Debian).
--
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
// Never attribute to stupidity what can be
// adequately explained by malice.
Reply to: