Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:44:58 +0100, Markus Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> I understand, that there are also the block graphic characters. If
> you live in a world where you use mostly double-width glyphs in
> terminal emulators, it might be convenient to also have double-width
> block graphics characters.
I use single-width glyphs exclusively, including block graphics.
The Linux console doesn't support double-width anyway (at least in
2.2.x kernels).
> The answer of the Unicode consortium is very simple here: Nobody
> should be using the block graphics characters anyway. their use is
> deprecated, and they are only in Unicode to guarantee round-trip
> compatibility with legacy sets.
This advice is nonsense. What should be used instead in an API for
terminal drawing, if it uses Unicode otherwise anyway? Why should it be
made more complicated by treating block drawing characters specially?
> In modern display systems (such as HTML), you have appropriate
> alternative means such as table constructs to do what you used to
> use block graphics for.
HTML is not appropriate for a terminal drawing API.
> If you want to draw a line in a text, use proper graphical primitives
> for that, not block graphics symbols.
There are no graphical primitives in terminals.
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk * [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://qrczak.ids.net.pl/
\__/
^^ SYGNATURA ZASTĘPCZA
QRCZAK
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
