On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Yu Shao wrote: Thanks for your answer.
> Because RedHat XFree86 18030 patch's compound text encoding part was > based on James Su's patch which was derived from UTF-8' code, it doesn't > really need GB18030.2000-0.enc and GB18030.200-1.enc to be functioning. > GB18030.2000* aliases were added purely because we want Mozilla working > properly as well. Aliasing gbk-0.enc to gb18030.2000-0.enc is fine except for 80 characters with different assignments in two encodings. However, gb18030.2000-1.enc in RH8 is different from Mozilla's GB18030Font1. Mozilla's GB18030Font1 is based on gb18030.2000-1 used in Solaris 9 (which is the same as attachement 348 in XF86 bugzilla and what James Su proposed adding in December 2002). So, the last sentence in the above paragraph doesn't seem to make sense. On top of that, RedHat 8/9 ships Xft-build of Mozilla by default so that Mozilla's encoders for X11 core fonts shouldn't be your concern, should they? Of course, when it's run with GDK_USE_XFT=0, it does matter. > About the identical mapping in RedHat's GB18030.2000-1, it is because > the inside compound encoding part is treating them as ISO10646 codes. This is a bit confusing. How am I supposed to interpret this together with the first sentennce in your reply? Do you need RH8's version of gb18030.2000-1.enc or not? How would you propose the conflict between RH's gb18030.2000-1.enc and Solaris/Mozilla/Java's gb18030.2000-1 be solved? Could you add your comment to http://bugs.xfree86.org//cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=441 ? Jungshik _______________________________________________ I18n mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/i18n
