On Apr 10 2007 20:51, Egmont Koblinger wrote: >On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 10:30:07AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> Really? Why is CJK so much more fundamental than, say, Arabic? > >Not more fundamental at all. It's just perhaps easier to "support" (I mean >keep track of the cursor, not to really support them of course). > >I can't see any reason why these two scripts should be handled identically: >either support both or none. If it's technically easier to support one and >harder to support the other, why not implement the first now? Maybe someone >will implement the other one later. > >Oh! Wait a moment! I haven't yet looked at bidi in Unicode, but taking the >first glimpse it seems to me that U+200E and U+200F control the writing >direction. Currently the kernel already skips 200E and 200F, doesn't print >anything, not even a replacement character (see char/consolemap.c). This >means that RTL is already "supported" at this level: eventually (when RTL >mode is turned off) the cursor stands where it is expected to stand. In >between, you either see the right number of replacement symbols, or (if your >font supports Arabic) you may see the symbols in reverse order. So, after >all, it's not worse at all than what I want to reach with CJK.
RTL is not supported, and perhaps we should not try. xterm does not do it either AFAICT. http://ttyrpld.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/ttyrpld/trunk/locale/fa_IR/LC_MESSAGES/ttyrpld.po?revision=15&view=markup for simple sample data. Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/