Fwd: Vim on OS X, (no)macatsui problem
- Forwarding this to vim_mac as Bjorn is not subscribed to
vim_multibyte as far as i know. Kenneth, I guess it would help if you
could post links to screenshots of the text as it's supposed to look
and of the garbled look, as well as the font you're using so we can
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Kenneth Beesley <krbeesley@...>--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> Date: October 5, 2007 6:35:27 PM GMT+02:00
> To: vim_multibyte@...
> Subject: Re: Vim on OS X, (no)macatsui problem
> Reply-To: vim_multibyte@...
> On 5 Oct 2007, at 03:59, Nico Weber wrote:
>> Hi Ken,
>>> In .gvimrc, if I specify
>>> set nomacatsui anti guifont=DejaVuAgain\ Sans\ Mono:h14
>>> then gvim renders Roman glyphs, from the Basic Multilingual Plane,
>>> but the Deseret glyphs (from the supplementary area) are rendered as
>>> sequences of Roman glyphs and spaces. Completely garbled
>>> If I change .gvimrc to
>>> set macatsui anti guifont=DejaVuAgain\ Sans\ Mono:h14
>>> (i.e. if I specify macatsui rather than nomacatsui, and this is the
>>> only change)
>>> then I see Roman and Deseret glyphs rendered as expected, but all
>>> look scraggly on the screen.
>>> Can anyone explain to me what is happening here and how I might get
>>> sharp renderings of both BMP and supplementary glyphs?
>> I don't expect this to work at all without 'macatsui'. My experience
>> is that vim assigns not enough horizontal space to supparea glyphs
>> (is that what "scraggly" means).
> Hello Nico,
> Thanks for the message. With 'nomacatsui' I see sharp, legible
> By "scraggly" I mean thin glyphs, with thin, shaky lines. These
> glyphs are legible, but they look bad.
>> This is because vim needs a
>> monospaced font for correct display, and the supparea glyphs are too
>> wide for the monospaced width of the current font (this can happen
>> because the font is not monospaced for all glyphs or because some
>> glyphs are subsitituted from other fonts, because they are missing in
>> the current font). This also does happen for some BMP glyphs (U+0E5B
>> ๛ for example, and many others).
> The Deseret glyphs (Unicode block starting U+10400) are alphabetic and
> fit into the same width as the other glyphs. As far as I can tell,
> the font I'm
> using is monowidth. When merging the Deseret glyphs, I first reset
> width to the width of the characters in the existing font (DejaVu
> Sans Mono).
> So whatever my problem is, it is not that the new glyphs I've added
> are too
> wide, or wider than the original glyphs.
>> One way that _might_ work is to get MacVim ( http://
>> macvim/ ), set its MMCellWidthMultiplier user default to something a
>> bit larger than 1 (do `defaults write org.vim.MacVim
>> MMCellWidthMultiplier 1.3`, see http://code.google.com/p/macvim/wiki/
>> UserDefaults for more information) and use that. This widens up all
>> glyphs, but perhaps it's good enough.
> As just explained, too-wide glyphs are not the problem, as far as I
> can tell.
>> I don't know if it's possible at all to have a monospaced font that
>> works for all writing systems. The Right Thing is probably to make
>> vim work with variable width fonts, but I guess that's very very
>> complicated and won't happen :-\
> For my current work, I just need a few alphabets (Roman, Shavian,
> Deseret) that can all fit in a reasonable width. I don't need "all
> systems". I am (as far as I can tell) using a monowidth font. The
> complication is that Shavian and Deseret are in the supplementary
> area, and Vim 7.1 just recently added patch 116 that is supposed to
> glyphs from the supplementary area to be rendered, for the first time.
> Previous to 116, you could edit supplementary characters, but even
> with a proper font, vim couldn't display the glyphs from the
> Thanks again for your message,
You received this message from the "vim_multibyte" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php