On 24 Jun 2001, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Here is another iteration of the SCW control function definition, to
> > allow users of terminal emulators full control over whether single-width
> > or double-width glyphs will be used:
>
> Why don't you use the Unicode tagging mechanism (or some special
> Unicode characters)? I think this makes sense even in plain text, and
> not only when communicating with terminal devices?
I see it really more as part of terminal formatting behaviour, which is
why I remained in the ISO 6429 syntax. I'll leave it up to the Unicode
consortium to come up with a tagging mechanism, though I don't think they
would go along with my approach of an up-to-end-of-line state, because the
Unicode consortium doesn't believe in terminals and line feeds.
The Unicode consortium seems generally more interested in what RFC 2646
calls in the context of MIME "flowed plain text", whereas we are in
terminal semantics generally more interested in "fixed plain text".
ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/packages/rfc/rfc2646.txt
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs/scw-proposal.html
Markus
--
Markus G. Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, UK
Email: mkuhn at acm.org, WWW: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/>
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
