Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:55:59 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unicode-based FreeBSD Message-ID: <20080830115559.GM86609@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20080830083901.GA2183@medusa.sysfault.org> References: <3cb459ed0808250952j572dfc35j2feb852a73de5ace@mail.gmail.com> <200808281718.m7SHISGL067492@lurza.secnetix.de> <3cb459ed0808290636r5eb389c8y6d4aafae1b8001cf@mail.gmail.com> <e7db6d980808291134h50bb71aaud1f4b8da7f61a174@mail.gmail.com> <3cb459ed0808291708l581422c1pdb2e3cb2913ecaa7@mail.gmail.com> <20080830083901.GA2183@medusa.sysfault.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nFBW6CQlri5Qm8JQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2008-Aug-30 10:39:02 +0200, Marcus von Appen <mva@sysfault.org> wrote: >I wonder, how backspacing will be implemented for complex scripts such >as the Indic one or Arabic, where two codepoints will be resolved to one >logical (and usually visible) character. IMHO, unless we want to embed the equivalent of pango in the kernel, the only realistic solution is to count unicode codepoints. >In my opinion that'd mean either that for codepoints, which are not >rendered, either the internal unicode set is used (for Arabic this'd be >form 1) or the user-visible one (form 2). In either of those case the >backspacing might appear broken to the user. It would be useful to know how other implementations work because I can't see how to avoid some degree of broken-ness without a complete CTF implementation. If we aim syscons at sysadmins then a degree of misbehaviour may be acceptable. >Creating a useful CJK font however will mostly mean to implement around >at least 1000-2000 characters ;-). The fonts are available in ports. I'm not sure if there are existing bit-mapped fonts but a TTF or similar font can be converted to a bitmap without major effort. Antialiasing would help with legibility. --=20 Peter Jeremy Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour. --nFBW6CQlri5Qm8JQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAki5NU8ACgkQ/opHv/APuIefGwCgo1d0w1bYv/RDqyVVZjwbGXbL l8IAoJEpdpADIVDM1WkpxDxAVUfPgGBR =7mUC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nFBW6CQlri5Qm8JQ--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080830115559.GM86609>