Hi,
At Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:47:02 +0100 ,
Karlsson Kent - keka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You would not use so-called plain text for a textbook (of any kind,
> on any subject, at least not these days; assuming that the source is
> electronic). Then, in the mark-up (whether "binary" or text based) you
> would select different fonts for the different languages in the text.
Ok, my example was not so good. I return to the point that using
Chinese character (you call it glyph) for Japanese text is simply
wrong, and vice versa. Plain text can be dirty but cannot be wrong.
Please ask your friend IRG people about this point or find
description from IRG documents, if you rely upon IRG people.
> There will be just a few fonts that have that kind of coverage
> in a single font.
It is not related to the current topic. Please develop it if you
need.
> And it is not recommendable to cover completely
> different scripts in a single font, though possible.
Then you can supply separate fonts for Latin and Devanagari.
An X locale can be developed so that Latin font is used for Latin
codepoints and Devanagari font is used for Devanagari codepoints.
How about CJK characters (you think it is glyphs) which share the
same codepoint?
---
Tomohiro KUBOTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://surfchem0.riken.go.jp/~kubota/
"Introduction to I18N"
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/intro-i18n/
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
