On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 11:22:06AM +0900, Tomohiro KUBOTA wrote:
> Hi,
>
> From: Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>
> Subject: Re: [patch] xterm 4.3.0-0pre1v3 i18n
> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:44:21 -0500
>
> > Please file a bug and tag it "experimental".
>
> Ok, I did.
You should have requested to tag it directly "wontfix", you would have saved
yourself some work ;) Or was the discussion with upstream done in the
meantime?
> > Also, I object to your patch unless the changed font names are confined
> > to UXTerm's application-defaults, not XTerms.
>
> Why? What is the reason? On the other hand, the current situation
> is apparently buggy - Mojibake occurs. See the following page:
>
> http://www.debian.or.jp/~kubota/mojibake/xterm.html
I also fail to understand why the xterm program should be unusable by CJK
people when the fix is so lightweighted. I may well be missing the point,
but I'd like to have more details if possible.
Branden, could you please provide more information about why this patch is
not good, and what should be changed in it to make it acceptable?
Or if you have other ideas to make xterm usable to CKJ people not willing to
use UTF, could you enlight us, please? For example, what are the arguments
used by upstream to convince you that this patch was bad ?
I am sorry to whine that way, but I'd really like to understand the
situation here. I'd be more than happy if your answer contains nothing but a
bunch of pointers.
Thanks for your time, Mt.
--
I'm not griping, I'm just observing what a miserable experience this is.
--- Calvin
Attachment:
pgpOxJDSiVeXZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature