On 24 Oct 2001, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: JS> However, if the last two fields of XLFD is something like iso8859-1, JS> wouldn't it better to follow some kind of 'wcswidth convention' per JS> 'character set+encoding' basis instead of 'ind. chars basis'?
JC> The XLFD provides a strict definition for `-c-' fonts. This defi- JC> nition is implemented by the freetype backend, which will do technic- JC> ally correct but slightly unintuitive things if you lie to it about JC> the nature of your fonts. Let me just make sure I understand your point. Are the following fonts (-watanabe-mincho-....iso8859-1 and -watanabe-mincho-.....jisx0208.1983-0) two separate fonts or a single font? watanabe-mincho.ttf -watanabe-mincho-medium-r-normal--0-0-0-0-c-0-iso8859-1 watanabe-mincho.ttf -watanabe-mincho-medium-r-normal--0-0-0-0-c-0-jisx0208. 1983-0 Does the XLFD definition of '-c-' font prevent them from having two different widths (*all* the glyphs in the second one are twice as wide as *all* the glyphs in the first one) ? If yes, I have no more to say. If not, I think my point still stands. JC> If you desire a different behaviour, you should either try to get your JC> applications to work with `-p-' fonts, or push for a ``biwidth'' `-b-' JC> spacing type to be included in a future versions of the XLFD. If the answer to my two questions above is no, I don't think '-b-' is necessary. '-b-' is only necessary for 'iso10646-1' fonts derived from CJK TTFs, but I'm not talking about them (for them, I suggested 'subsetting' as a way around in my previous mesg.). Of course, if the answer is yes, my point is moot. Jungshik Shin _______________________________________________ I18n mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/i18n
