[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: XTerm and ISO-2022

To: linux-utf8@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: XTerm and ISO-2022
From: Tomohiro KUBOTA <tkubota@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 01:19:27 +0900
In-reply-to: In your message of "Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:51:52 +0000 (GMT)" <Pine.LNX.4.21.0102021450550.1049-100000@janus.arrow>
Mail-reply-to: tkubota@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <873ddxta5e.wl@surfchem0.riken.go.jp> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0102021450550.1049-100000@janus.arrow>
Reply-to: linux-utf8@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-linux-utf8@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Wanderlust/1.1.1 (Purple Rain) EMY/1.13.8 (Tastes differ) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui) APEL/10.2 Emacs/20.7 (i386-debian-linux-gnu) MULE/4.1 (AOI)

Hi,

At Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:51:52 +0000 (GMT),
Robert Brady <robert@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Is there any advantage over Xterm supporting ISO-2022, over w3m supporting
> UTF-8?

(1) ISO-2022 is free from 'mojibake', as I wrote.
(2) ISO-2022 is free from Unicode's overreaching CJK han unification.
    (bad legacy from mess 16bit Unicode.)
(3) ISO-2022 code space is wider than Unicode.
(4) ISO-2022 support is easier for the current implimentation of w3m
    than Unicode.  (I don't know about the internal of w3m; this is
    what the w3m developer said.)

---
Tomohiro KUBOTA <kubota@xxxxxxxxxx>
http://surfchem0.riken.go.jp/~kubota/
"Introduction to I18N"
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/intro-i18n/
-
Linux-UTF8:   i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive:      http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: XTerm and ISO-2022
  - From: Robert Brady

References:
- XTerm and ISO-2022
  - From: Tomohiro KUBOTA
- Re: XTerm and ISO-2022
  - From: Robert Brady

Prev by Date: Re: intermediate summary (Re: filename encoding)
Next by Date: Re: filename encoding (was: ISO-2022)
Previous by thread: Re: XTerm and ISO-2022
Next by thread: Re: XTerm and ISO-2022
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread