I have pushed fixes for the box drawing characters, and for the
incorrect forms of arabic characters. This includes fixes to IBM 851
and IBM 868, which were not part of your patch.
Many of the remaining changes suggested are a bit dubious though.
For example, in IBM 437 you proposed the
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail
Ilpalazzo!) @ Pike (-) developers forum 10...@lyskom.lysator.liu.se
wrote:
I have pushed fixes for the box drawing characters, and for the
incorrect forms of arabic characters. This includes fixes to IBM 851
and IBM 868, which were
Ok. Then my approach would be to keep things as they are until
someone comes up with a specific complaint. :-) As I said, the box
drawing stuff is fixed, so feel free to raise a new issue if you find
something else which is a concrete problem.
(As a side note, I think you were justified in
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:50 AM, Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail
Ilpalazzo!) @ Pike (-) developers forum 10...@lyskom.lysator.liu.se
wrote:
Ok. Then my approach would be to keep things as they are until
someone comes up with a specific complaint. :-) As I said, the box
drawing stuff is fixed,
Ooops, there was an -n on that command line... :-)
Fixed now.
I haven't checked whether the changes to the codepages that you
suggest make sense yet (the current tables are generated from
RFC1345, so if there is a discrepancy it should be investigated more
closely), but I don't really see any point in adding your script to
the repository...
Hm, the issue seems to be that RFC1345 does not distinguish between
heavy strokes and double strokes in the box drawing characters. I'll
make a script to go through those and check them.
And I'd be inclined to fix any acctual errors, rather than blindly
following one or the other. :-)
Just so you know, the MAPPINGS files on unicode.org is not part of
the Unicode standard, so they are no more a standard than RFC 1345 is.
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail
Ilpalazzo!) @ Pike (-) developers forum 10...@lyskom.lysator.liu.se
wrote:
And I'd be inclined to fix any acctual errors, rather than blindly
following one or the other. :-)
Just so you know, the MAPPINGS files on unicode.org is
Oh! Okay. What is the standard? Where would I find an authoritative
set of codepage-to-Unicode character set replacements?
The authority for mapping for a particular codepage would be the owner
of said codepage. So in the case of e.g. IBM 437 it would be IBM.
An owner of a codepage has no
Was doing some codepage work (playing with CP437), and found that the
Pike CP-437 decoder actually produces wrong output, according to the
unicode.org template file. I'm not sure what's going on here; is there
some alternate standard that it's adhering to?
Here are two scripts to compare codepage
11 matches
Mail list logo
