On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Markus Kuhn wrote:
> Karl Koehler wrote on 2000-11-14 13:02 UTC:
[ .. ]
> > Lam-Alef in occupies one code position only. For xterm,
> > it would be nicer if it could be also split into two code positions;
[ .. ]
> There is a far simpler solution to get the same effect, which I suggested
> in:
>
> http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/2000-09/msg00137.html
Sorry, I had missed that.
The following ligatures mentioned are not so important :
FD82 ARABIC LIGATURE LAM WITH HAH WITH ALEF MAKSURA FINAL FORM
FC43 ARABIC LIGATURE LAM WITH ALEF MAKSURA ISOLATED FORM
FC86 ARABIC LIGATURE LAM WITH ALEF MAKSURA FINAL FORM .
> You can declare these Arabic ligatures to be double-width characters,
The effect is not the same; the ligature can only be deleted as
one piece. On the other hand this need not be a disadvantage
( not having tried it I can't say ).
I have not seen a fixed-width font without the LAM-ALEF ligature;
maybe Roozbeh comes up width something decent.
[ .. ]
> You then just have to put suitable
> glyphs into the corresponding double-width font (e.g. 18x18 for 9x18,
> etc.). If you want to have a go at it, we can easily add a 20x20 font to
> the fixed collection.
Would adding a 20x20-font imply that I have to add all the Latin,
Cyrillic, ... characters too, or would that be a supplement to 10x20
( 10x20 being my favourite font ) ?
> It might well be a good idea to give the ALEF LAM ligatures
> a wcwidth() == 2 in such a spec, so we should definitely play around
> with the idea and add the necessary glyphs to at least some of the
> terminal emulator fonts.
What about the range FD50-FDFB ? Does it make sense to add any of
these characters at all ? ( They might be nice for a program
that knows they are there, and they should be considered double-width,
if anything ).
Karl
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
