Re: Which text editor is compatible with crxvt?
On Sun, 7 Feb 1999 claydona@ms3.hinet.net wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Yi-ping Chang wrote:
>
> There is nothing wrong with vi for big-5 compatibility. I have found
> you have to be clever how you place your mouse to get the input ok.
>
> The other thing was to open crxvt first but not to open xcin with the
> crxvt window but to do a
> ctrl-z bg
> and then
> xcin
> in the original xterm
> window.
Sorry, I tried your method, but it doesn't work. It is still
displaying the hexcal code. Probably, I misunderstood the line: ctrl-z bg.
Do you mean to stop the job, and re-fork it to the background??
Anyway, I remembered that there is a setting we can set in vi to
enable the 8-bit mode. But I cannot find the exact name after going thru
the man page. Just like the difference between more & less, with more we
can view the chinese, and with less we cannot.
I am now using xa+xcin with emacs-mule. It works very well. But I
would like to get the most efficient vi working as well.
Thx.
shao.
> Judging by the HOWTO there are many woes for input. I got it going with
>
> xcin -in1 phonetic.tab
>
> for chu yin and roman input
>
> crxvt works well with lynx , lynx will need no special configuration;
> point it straight at your favorite page with big-5
>
> best regards from
> angus claydon
> >
> Hello, guys: >
> > I would like to know which text editor is compatible with big-5 Chinese
> > text. I have "xcin" and "crxvt" installed in my linux box. Because my
> > favorite editor is vi, I tried to open a Chinese document with that in
> > crxvt terminal, but what I found is some thing like \056\378\053.....
> > It didn't turn these special characters into Chinese but just print
> > their code. So if somebody can help me out on this, I will really
> > appreciate it. Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Yi-ping Chang
> >
> >
> > --
> > Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null
>
>
Reply to: