[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#219551: Unicode xterms should do some kind of substitution for missing characters

On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 01:11:29PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> [ Disclaimer: I'm part of the XSF, but I don't generally deal with        ]
> [ [u]xterm So this is merely my opinion.                                  ]
> It seems to me like this is an emminently *bad* slope to start down; the
> entire point of Unicode's distinguishing between the two is that they
> are, in fact, different. True, if one transliterates them back to ASCII,
> then they both end up being 0x002D, but it seems to me that the sanest
> assumption, if someone is running UTF-8, is that they actually want UTF-8.
> If the default Unicode fonts are incomplete enough that they lack this
> character, then that is probably worthy of a bug (and this one could just
> be reassigned), but I fail to see why the application should be expected to
> do something fundamentally antithetical to the user's stated request for
> UTF-8, simply because some fonts claiming to be intended for Unicode fail
> to provide a useful set of Unicode entries.

I am tempted to agree.  However:

1) The Unicode tables define decompositions and alternate forms for many
   codepoints, so the slippery slope is at least defined.  We probably
   need a unicode-slippery-slope shared library  rather than writing
   this functionality into xterm directly.  :)
2) I'll want to know what the upstream XTerm maintainer, Thomas Dickey,
   thinks.  He scans the Debian xterm package bug reports periodically,
   so I am going to await his input.

G. Branden Robinson                |     Suffer before God and ye shall be
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     redeemed.  God loves us, so He
branden@debian.org                 |     makes us suffer Christianity.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     -- Aaron Dunsmore

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: