Hi,
At Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:54:53 +0200 (CEST),
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > However, thank you for explaining glyph. I also understand you
> > understand problems on Japanese character codes well.
> Well, I'm the author of the CJK package for LaTeX, I've written a
> ttf2pk con
> JIS X 0213 has many characters which are also included in JIS X 0212.
> It is very confusing. I guess JIS people think JIS X 0212 is
> obsolete.
Basically, only Emacs supports JIS X 0212...
> A few characters in JIS X 0213 are not included in the present
> Unicode.
AFAIK, this will be fixed
> "TK" == Tomohiro KUBOTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right. I think I've answered this problem in my last mail (regarding
> a `glyphclass' directive in font description files).
TK> Then all of these glyphs have to have the same width. Fortunately,
TK> CJK ideograms and
Hi,
At Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:40:35 +0200 (CEST),
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note that such an encoding request has to determine the encoding *and*
> character set of a document (similar to Emacs).
(snip)
> Examples:
> .\" -*- charset: JIS-X-0208; encoding: EUC -*-
> .\" -*- cha
> Hanguls are usually treated as fixed-width, but it is not true. Many
> Korean wordprocessor supports proportional Hangul fonts, and even
> Korean Windows (9X/ME/2000) have proportional Hangul TrueType fonts
> in default (e.g. Gulim. Gulim has one more variation, Gulim-che; it
> is fixed-width f
> > Note that such an encoding request has to determine the encoding *and*
> > character set of a document (similar to Emacs).
> (snip)
> > Examples:
> > .\" -*- charset: JIS-X-0208; encoding: EUC -*-
> > .\" -*- charset: JIS-X-0208; encoding: ISO-2022 -*-
>
> No. only specifying 'encoding' i
Hi,
At Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:15:02 +0200 (CEST),
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The same exists for Japanese and Chinese, especially for vertical
> writing.
I think *ideograms* have fixed width everywhere. Of course CJK languages
have their own non-letter symbols which sometimes don'
Hi,
At Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:12:07 +0200 (CEST),
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is not true. Encoding does *not* imply the character set.
> You are talking about charset/encoding tags.
Hmm, I cannot understand your idea...
In Emacs, charsets such as ISO8859-1, JISX0208.1990, an
8 matches
Mail list logo