On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 05:04:22PM +0000, Dave Love wrote:
> >>>>> "OD" == Oliver Doepner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> OD> There is vim 6.x now with full utf-8 support on the xterm.
>
> [Does `full utf-8 support' mean level 3?]
Well, it handles double-width characters as well as up to two combining
characters. It's the only editor I've used (including Yudit) that could
display the sequence U+0283 U+034D correctly.
> Emacs can do utf-8 i/o under ttys that support it, though you don't
> _need_ such support -- either input or output -- to edit utf-8 text.
>
> OD> It is much faster than emacs on x11 of course.
>
> I'm surprised that's much of an issue. I assume Emacs under X is much
> more capable.
Well, Emacs does have more features (including some that are less
essential, such as doctor mode :), but vim has quite enough for most
purposes.
> OD> I was happy to see Emacs 21 announced. but the unicode support
> OD> does not seem to have moved forward very much
>
> It's moved from zero to the state where it's perfectly fine for
> editing at least the Western technical text that interests me. E.g.,
> Kuhn's UTF-8-demo.utf works modulo the level 2 text, for which one can
> add support straightforwardly at the Lisp level. It also allowed
> producing coding systems for all the 8-bit charsets for GNUish
> locales, which perhaps matters more in the wide world than utf-8 per
> se. With some customization, I can also at least _display_
> utf-8-encoded CJK text. I can send and receive utf-8-encoded mail and
> browse utf-8-encoded web sites (with the development W3 package).
Vim can display the UTF-8-demo file perfectly, with no exceptions. Also,
although I haven't tested this, I am told it can write as well as
display utf-8 CJK text.
- Jimmy Kaplowitz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP signature
