On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Yu Shao wrote: > Jungshik Shin wrote: > > >On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Yu Shao wrote:
> I don't get you here, the first version of the patch was made for Red > Hat 7.3, at that time we have to use Mozilla with X core font. Since > then the patch has been there almost unchanged. > >>GB18030.2000* aliases were added purely because we want Mozilla working (you made gb18030.2000-0 an alias to gbk-0, but you also made a new identity mapping for gb18030.2000-1. They're different/separate issues that cannot be aggregated with '*'.) As I wrote, Mozilla's GB18030Font1 is NOT your gb18030.2000-1.enc BUT Sun's gb18030.2000-1 (and what's proposed by James Su and Roland Mainz). There's NO dispute about gb18030.2000-0. The question is about gb18030.2000-1 (not '0'). With this difference, how could you make Mozilla (non-Xft build) work with your gb18030.2000-1? Probably, it gave you an impression that it worked either because you also had iso10646-1 fonts or because you haven't checked BMP characters _outside_ the repertoire of gb18030.2000-0 with Mozilla. > >>About the identical mapping in RedHat's GB18030.2000-1, it is because > >>the inside compound encoding part is treating them as ISO10646 codes. > > > > This is a bit confusing. How am I supposed to interpret this together > >with the first sentennce in your reply? Do you need RH8's > >version of gb18030.2000-1.enc or not? This question of mine is about Compound text encoding. You began your reply with the following. > >>Because RedHat XFree86 18030 patch's compound text encoding part was > >>based on James Su's patch which was derived from UTF-8' code, it doesn't > >>really need GB18030.2000-0.enc and GB18030.200-1.enc to be functioning. and then ended it with 'About the identical mapping .... the inside compound ... is treating them as ......'. To me it appears to contradict each other. > > How would you propose the conflict between RH's gb18030.2000-1.enc and > >Solaris/Mozilla/Java's gb18030.2000-1 be solved? Could you add your > >comment to http://bugs.xfree86.org//cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=441 ? > What GB18030 compound encoding code has XFree86 decided to use? right > now, there is even no GB18030 X locale definition in CVS, > there is no > conflict, just totally depends on how to approach the compound text > encoding part. Let me make it clear. The conflict is not inside XFree86 but between RH8's gb18030.2000-1 on the one hand and Sun's and Mozilla's gb18030.2000-1 (and what James Su and Romland Mainz proposed) on the other hand. It's regrettable that your patch hasn't been discussed in open forums like fonts/i18n list of XFree86 IIRC (my memory sometimes doesn't serve me well so that I may have missed it). Do you care which of two gb18030.2000-1's is included in XFree86, do you? If you don't care, you're willing to replace RH's gb18030.2000-1.enc with that based on Sun's/Mozilla's/Java's (as suggested by James Su in http://www.mail-archive.com/fonts%40xfree86.org/msg01343.html or by Roland in http://bugs.xfree86.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=441) Independent of compound text encoding, it's bad that gb18030.2000-1 has two different meanings. That's what I want to resolve here. If you agree to go with Sun's version, we won't have to worry about having to figure out which is which (although x11 core fonts become less and less important...) Jungshik _______________________________________________ Fonts mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/fonts
