On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:21:44 +1000 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:51:09 +0530 Gora Mohanty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled: > > > On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 06:01:24 +1000 > > Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [...] > > > this is why EFL doesn't have support. i'd have to write it all, OR use > > > pango... and pango, last i looked, was not light on overhead, > > > > Agreed there. Have not actually benchmarked Pango myself, but by all > > accounts it is resource-hungry, though that is probably not inappropriate > > for a library aiming to handle all of Unicode. > > in all reality though - it's probably the ultimate way to go... or something > of > the kind... Hmm, maybe it is worth thinking about stripping out the portions of ICU/Pango that apply to scripts from particular regions, and making region-specific packages of these. [...] > oooh - i was just talking about utf8 being how the code all deals with text. > you have a lot fo glyph space available, so it's not limited. foo COURSE you > will need to translate to other charsets when dealing with things like SMS, > email etc. [...] > then you still need a converter tat converts series of chars into special > utf8-encoded glyphs to represent this font... not pretty... but of course > possible. [...] Yes, you are right about the need for converters, and the need for special fonts, but I believe that this is the only way to get support for complex scripts on text-based terminals. This will need to be done at some point for the Linux console, as I doubt that they are ever going to roll support for complex text handling into the console drivers. For now, on the OpenMoko hardware, maybe a stripped-down ICU/Pango is the best solution. Let me think about this. Regards, Gora _______________________________________________ Openmoko community mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
