peterjeremy at optushome.com.au
Sat Aug 30 11:56:02 UTC 2008
On 2008-Aug-30 10:39:02 +0200, Marcus von Appen <mva at 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.
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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20080830/0fb2bc20/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-current