Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The existing file does include a number of languages which don't > illustrate any script. That could be why people think they ought to > add more languages, regardless of whether they illustrate any script > in a useful way. > > Should we delete the languages that are redundant > for the purpose of illustrating scripts?
No. For some users, we could end up with a buffer mostly full of square boxes in case none of the scripts work. Besides, it gives a warm feeling that Emacs knows how to say hello in your own language! And I think it is quite funny to look at the various examples, so IMO, we should add more ... I The text says: This is a list of ways to say hello in various languages. Its purpose is to illustrate a number of scripts. Change this to: This is a list of ways to say hello in various languages. Its primary purpose is to illustrate a number of scripts. A script is ... [you tell me] If you see square boxes ... [what then?] BTW, in the first part of the list, the "special" glyphs in the Esperanto and Maltese entires are much taller than the "normal" glyphs - and so are the bracketed glyphs in English. But in the mule-unicode-0100-24ff section, the Esperanto and Maltese looks just right. I suppose it is a local font (script?) problem, but I have nothing to compare it to. -- Kim F. Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.cua.dk _______________________________________________ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
