Robert de Bath wrote:
>
> Currently I've implemented Markus's wcwidth proposal with the ambigious
> characters as single width; I thought it was settled at the time.
>
> But the recent discussions have given me a question:
> "Why do we want plaintext to use a Bi-Width font?"
>
> I'm not arguing that editors and mail clients etc may want to do _paint_
> the screen using multiple font widths but isn't a terminal _supposed_ to
> use a single width for all characters _unless_ told to change the character
> attributes ?
>
No, not if you want to handle CJK characters. Biwidth characters are CJK
legacy just as monospace is general terminal legacy.
-hpa
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at work, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
