[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hideki Hiura) writes:
> > From: Owen Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > My recommendation, then, for the UTF-8 locale files, is that for locales
> > where iso10646-1 is a reasonable font encoding, we should point to
> > a en_US.UTF-8 locale that has only iso10646-1 and nothing else.
>
> With enough typeface available in the form of smart font, it may be a
> good option, but before jumping into extreme option ;-), would you
> erabolate why it should not be as you suggested for other locales?
I'm certainly not certain that we shouldn't set up the font sets that
way, but some reasons I didn't suggest it were:
- There are some strange effects that occur for the user if you
list all the font encodings individually with iso10646-1 last.
An important one is, if I have, as my fontset specification:
-*-arial-medium-r-normal--*-140-*-*-p-*-*-*,
-*-helvetica-medium-r-normal--*-140-*-*-p-*-*-*
And (for the sake of discussion) say that I have arial in only
iso10646-1, but I have helvetica in both iso10646-1 and
iso8859-1. Then I'll get Helvetica for iso8859-1 characters,
not Arial.
This effect is even more dramatic if you put fallbacks like
'*' or '*-r-*' into your fontset list, which many people do.
- I've had performance problems with putting long lists of fonts
into XLC_LOCALE, especially if the lists of fonts includes CJK fonts.
It's possible that there is something broken with the on-demand
loading implementation in the XFree86 Xlib.
- It's not clear to me where you should stop in listing character
sets if you list individual character sets. XFree86 has 38
different font encodings listed in xc/fonts/encodings.
Even if on-demand loading is working, there are going to be
performance for having too big a list of character sets in
the XLC_LOCALE.
Regards,
Owen
_______________________________________________
I18n mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/i18n
