On 18 Dec 2002 15:11:44 -0800, Nadim Shaikli wrote: > > --- Mikhael Goikhman <migo homemail com> wrote: > > > I tested the results and seems to work ok with unicode and iso8859-8. > > But I can't see iso8859-6 in titles now. I have a lot of iso8859-6 > > fonts and I was able to see it in the past. I run: > > > > xterm -name Arabic -title "`env LANG=ar_JO.iso8859-6 date`" > > > > Now, I can see joined Arabic with unicode font: > > > > Style Arabic Font StringEncoding=iso8859-6:*-arabeyes-*/iso10646-1 > > > > (so all these font prefixes and suffixes may be useful after all). > > But if I use iso8859-6 font directly I see only reversed question signs: > > > > Style Arabic Font -lbi-naskhi-medium-r-normal--12-120-75-75-m-70-iso8859-6 > > > > This font does work if I use it with xterm -fn '*naskhi-medium*-12*' > > and I see Arabic in it after: env LANG=ar_JO.iso8859-6 date > > > > So something does not work. Can anyone see iso8859-6 text and font? > > Keep in mind that iso8859-6 doesn't spell out proper Arabic visual > support since it doesn't include all the shaped/joined glyphs and > as such you should always revert to an 10646-1 font (which ought to > include unicode's Form-B glyphs). Also in passing, the encoding > should be UTF-8. > > So the following will work, > > Style * Font StringEncoding=UTF-8:*-arabeyes-*/iso10646-1 > or > Style * Font *-arabeyes-*/iso10646-1 > > (the UTF-8 is implied with a 10646-1 font indicator, per what > Olivier had wisely implemented :-)
No, this will not work, because the string encoding is not utf-8. > I would also think that the following ought to work (but I've > been told that it doesn't), shouldn't this work (Olivier) ? > > Style * Font StringEncoding=UTF-8:*-arabeyes-* > > With regard to your 'naskhi' font - if it contains the required > Form-B glyphs (U+FE70 - U+FEFF), then the following ought to work, > > Style Arabic Font *-naskhi-medium-*-iso8859-6/iso10646-1 If it is iso8859-6 font (not unicode), it can't be promoted to iso10646-1. Nadim, you seem to imply that the only valid way to write Arabic is unicode. But this is not correct. Here is a valid Arabic that is not unicode: env LANG=ar_JO.iso8859-6 date We supported all iso encodings. I see no valid reason to stop to support iso8859-6. I think the problem is that once shaping is applied fribidi (or is it iconv?) can't go back to iso8859-6 and uses question marks then, so we should only apply shaping for unicode encoding of original strings. Just tried this theory. Yes, if I disable shaping, I see iso8859-6 with: Exec env LANG=C xterm -name Arabic -title "`env LANG=ar_JO.iso8859-6 date`" Style Arabic Font '*-medium-*-12-*-iso8859-6' You may try these fvwm commands yourself with and without shaping code. I don't believe you prefer question marks to non-shaped Arabic. :) Regards, Mikhael. -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
