[01.02.02 15:34 -0500] Thomas Dickey <-- : > On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 09:11:31PM +0100, Radovan Garabik wrote: > > Thomas E. Dickey wrote: > > > > : actually, last fall I modified lynx to use ncursesw, and it appeasrs to > > : work reasonably well (does not compute lengths for combining characters, > > : which is not as bad as what you're describing). > > > > Having read this, I downloaded lynx sources and since I have > > UTF-8 enabled slang, I decided to give it a try and recompiled > > lynx with slang support - and now lynx seems to work flawlessly > > in UTF-8 mode (I did not verify the combining characters issue though) > > I've read that slang-utf8 doesn't implement that. (But since there's no > formal spec or compatibility requirements for that, perhaps someone will > implement it - with ncurses, I already have a long predefined to-do list ;-)
Does that mean for UTF-8 it is better to replace ncurses by slang, or the other way round, or have both and then link against the better one (which would be the most complicated because, where do we have a list which is the better one)? Might sound silly for you but for me it is really getting confusing now. -- Erika Pacholleck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for private replies unhex my last name -- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
