Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Edwin Leuven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | i was just wondering why lyx needs this and kde (for example) is
| > | seemingly doing fine without it
| > Is kde a wordprocessor (whatever) that tries to be usable of
| > professionsals of all sorts?
| > I'd love to see LyX usable for linguists that work with phoenician.
|
| I am wondering how we will manage to show these ucs4 symbols on screen
| with Qt. Are you thinking of a pixmap rendering of some sort? Thus
| without using QString painting?
Who cares about Qt?
If Qt is not able to show the unicode char then the Qt frontend writer
has a job to do. And the better the job is done the more useful LyX
will be.
| If that will not be possible, then we should just stop all development
| with Qt and concentrate on a toolkit that understand ucs4.
Remember that Qt (as in the frontend) also has to do the right thing
if it cannot find the glyph in any available font.
And no, you don't need to understatnd ucs4, but you have to understand
the full 21bit unicode... which Qt does not (only 16 bit understood
there), so the Qt frontend will have to create
workarounds/limitations.
| From a pragmatic point of view, using QString would have been a lot
| less work than what remains to be done, which, quite frankly, scares
| me a lot.
I do not think QString would have reduced the work much (if at all).
--
Lgb
