On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 02:04:32AM +0800, Abel Cheung wrote: > >not all we like, but can you come up with things that should > >legitimately be wide (i.e. ideographs) which have no chance to enter > >Unicode? > > Certain there are, say some belonging to Taiwan CNS11643, which > is regarded as variation of existing character in Unicode. And there
If they're needed for round trip compatibility with a legacy charset, it should be possible to encode them in one of the CJK compatibility sections. Are there still characters missing? > are other symbols and characters not accepted in unicode, not > necessarily wide. Though I must admit usage of those would certainly > be quite rare. If they're not wide then the default wcwidth of 1 is ok, no? ~Rich -- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
