Hello, Dominik,
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:36:09 +0200
Dominik Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> See below.
>
> > --- libs/FlocaleCharset.c 2006-12-09 19:43:39.000000000 +0100
> > +++ libs/FlocaleCharset.c 2006-12-09 19:46:38.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -522,7 +522,7 @@
> > }
> >
> > if (FLCXOMCharsetList_num > 0 && FLCXOMCharsetList[0])
> > - FLCXOMCharset = FLCXOMCharsetList[0];
> > + FLCXOMCharset = FLCXOMCharsetList[FLCXOMCharsetList_num - 1];
> > #endif
> > }
>
> What is special about the last entry in the charset list? Or are
> we just picking some random entry and hope that it works?
Well, this is the output of "PrintInfo Locale 1" on my system:
*******************************
FVWM info on locale:
locale: es_ES.utf8, Modifier:
Default Charset: X: ISO10646-1, Iconv: UTF-8, Bidi: No
XOM Charsets: ISO8859-1 ISO8859-1 JISX0208.1983-0 KSC5601.1987-0
GB2312.1980-0 JISX0201.1976-0 ISO10646-1
Number of loaded font: 4
* Font number 0
fvwm info:
Name: Shadow=0 0:xft:DejaVu Sans:style=Bold:size=7
Cache count: 9
Type: XftFont
Charset: X: ISO10646-1, Iconv: UTF-8, Bidi: No
height: 13, ascent: 11, descent: 3
shadow size: 0, shadow offset: 0, shadow direction:0
* Font number 1
fvwm info:
Name: Shadow=0 0:xft:DejaVu Sans:size=7:styName: Shadow=0 0:xft:DejaVu
Sans:size=7:style=Bold
Cache count: 1
Type: XftFont
Charset: X: ISO10646-1, Iconv: UTF-8, Bidi: No
height: 13, ascent: 11, descent: 3
shadow size: 0, shadow offset: 0, shadow direction:0
* Font number 2
fvwm info:
Name: Shadow=0 0:xft:DejaVu Sans:style=Condensed:size=7.2
Cache count: 1
Type: XftFont
Charset: X: ISO10646-1, Iconv: UTF-8, Bidi: No
height: 13, ascent: 11, descent: 3
shadow size: 0, shadow offset: 0, shadow direction:0
* Font number 3
fvwm info:
Name: 0
Cache count: 1
Type: XftFont
Charset: X: ISO10646-1, Iconv: UTF-8, Bidi: No
height: 13, ascent: 11, descent: 3
shadow size: 0, shadow offset: 0, shadow direction:0
*******************************
I don't know how the XOM charsets are usually ordered. In case that someone
known, drop me a note. I will research about it, and try to find an all-cases
solution. But, it is crystal-clear to me that the actual state of the things
is not the correct one either. It is not less random than the choice that the
patch makes, it just takes the other extreme of the array, but, as shown in
the links I posted, and my own case, this is not correct, at least, not for
utf8 systems.
For now, I just have the empiric note that it works on all systems I tried,
better than [0], but I did not try non-alphabetic languages, nor Arabic...
so, that belief of mine might be completely false.
If someone has some info about the issue that could be helpful, let
me know. I will research about the patch, and try to explain how it works
so we can discard it. If that happens, I will try to design a better patch
that can handle all the locales properly.
--
Jesús Guerrero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
