Juliusz Chroboczek writes:
> The mechanism that XTerm is supposed to use is described in
>
> http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/home/jec/programs/xfsft/UTF8-selection.text
I'd recommend that XTerm use _both_ the UTF8_STRING proposal and the
traditional STRING/COMPOUND_TEXT based mechanism.
Currently, in the XFree86-4.0.1 UTF-8 locale, you can cut&paste
Unicode text between emacs and xedit, and also between xterm and
yudit. But between emacs/xedit on one side and xterm/yudit on the
other, no data exchange is possible. This is clearly not satisfactory
from a user's point of view.
Robert Brady writes:
> Perhaps the bug here is that the cutbuffer is not withdrawn at
> the same time as the selection?
Without the cutbuffers cut&paste would be harder to use.
With cut buffers, a user can select some text in a window, kill the
application and paste the previously selected text in another
application. Whereas the selection mechanism requires the first app to
be still alive in order to negotiate.
Juliusz Chroboczek writes:
> The cutbuffer mechanism is untyped, and it is deprecated.
It is not untyped, it is always STRING (i.e. Latin1). Furthermore it
is not deprecated; it is just "much simpler but much less powerful
than the selection mechanism". See ICCCM spec section 3.
Bruno
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
