On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 05:27:57AM -0400, Gaute B Strokkenes wrote: > Absolutely. See, for instance, > <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr19/>. You will have to wade through > a lot of poorly worded standardese in order to convince yourself of > that, though.
Well, I have no problems with doing that. Would have been nice if you had cited the standards to convince me of that :) > It's also worth pointing out that UCS _is_ Unicode. Well, I was aware of a close relationship, but I also read the UTF-8 and Unicode FAQ and now I looked it up again and found this: "UTF-32 is the exact same thing as UCS-4, except that by definition UTF-32 is never used to represent characters above U-0010FFFF, while UCS-4 can cover all 2^31 code positions up to U-7FFFFFFF." (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs/ISO-10646-UTF-16.html) > If you want to design a console/terminal emulator in The Right > Way(tm), then you might want to have a look at the linux-utf8 [sic] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing lists, where the topic of next-generation > terminal emulation and consoles is discussed from time to time. It > would be good to be compatible with UTF-8 xterm, for instance. Thanks for the pointer. What do you mean with compatible? I am going to use the X Unicode fonts, if they give any decent output on the console with a VGA card (have not tried yet). Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
