Re: [PATCH] console UTF-8 fixes

[Jan Engelhardt]

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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/