Re: fallbacks for nonexisting combining characters

[Markus Kuhn <Markus.Kuhn@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robert Brady wrote on 2001-01-10 14:51 UTC:
>   * not drawing combining characters if they aren't present in the font,
>     this way we end up with "i" for "i-with-thingy-above" if there is no
>     thingy-above in the font.

Agreed.

>     But I'm not sure that this is a good way to do it, because it will
>     be misleading.  But OTOH, I don't like the existing approach of
>     overstriking the default glyph on the base character, as this often
>     leaves it unreadable.

Agreed. The default character should only be used to represent missing
base characters. It is definitely not suited to represent missing
combining characters and should never be used for that purpose.

Please change xterm such that a combining character missing from the
font is simply not displayed. Then this will also save me from having to
add to the charcell fonts space characters for all the zero-width and
control characters that we want to handle in xterm just like combining
characters (as we discussed a few weeks ago).

(I'm somewhat agnostic about the other things you suggested and
generally prefer if the mechanics inolved is kept as simple as
possible.)

Markus

-- 
Markus G. Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, UK
Email: mkuhn at acm.org,  WWW: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/>

-
Linux-UTF8:   i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive:      http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/