Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Multibyte bugs

Expand Messages
  • Bram Moolenaar
    ... Searching revealed a few proposals for these character ranges. And this page has a confusing summary:
    Message 1 of 8 , Apr 11 8:33 AM
      Tony Mechelynck wrote:

      > On 11/04/10 16:33, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
      > [...]
      > > It's weird that digraphs are defined for an area that doesn't have
      > > characters assigned to it. I wonder what happened here. Perhaps this
      > > changed at some point in time? If we know the reason we may want to
      > > drop all the dibgraphs for 0xexxx.
      > [...]
      >
      > My guess is that when that RFC was drafted in 1992, some of the charsets
      > they wanted to list used a few characters which, at that time, weren't
      > clearly assigned to one Unicode codepoint, and that the RFC authors
      > arbitrarily (and maybe temporarily) placed these characters in a
      > "private use area", which is the only place where "characters not yet
      > assigned a Unicode codepoint" may go. This is only a guess, however. I'm
      > not sure how many people are reading this (extremely low-volume) ML, but
      > maybe someone knows the history of those mnemonics from RFC 1345 better
      > than you and I do? If someone with that knowledge is reading this,
      > please speak up.
      >
      > IMHO it makes no sense to have digraphs in Vim for "private use"
      > characters. I propose to drop any of them that cannot be usefully
      > reassigned to some "official" Unicode codepoint elsewhere. E000 to E028
      > means forty-one codepoints, it ought not to be a big problem.

      Searching revealed a few proposals for these character ranges. And
      this page has a confusing summary:
      http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Unicode/Character_reference/E000-EFFF
      "private use" but it does have a table with characters.

      Let's remove these digraphs. I can't imagine anyone is using them.

      --
      Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.
      -- Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) (1835-1910)

      /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
      /// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
      \\\ download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org ///
      \\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///

      --
      You received this message from the "vim_multibyte" maillist.
      For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

      To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
    • Tony Mechelynck
      ... [...] ... Yes; in my browser and with my usual font most (but not all) of them are CJK fullwidth ideograms and full-width counterparts of halfwidth math
      Message 2 of 8 , Apr 12 12:46 AM
        On 11/04/10 17:33, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
        >
        > Tony Mechelynck wrote:
        [...]
        >> IMHO it makes no sense to have digraphs in Vim for "private use"
        >> characters. I propose to drop any of them that cannot be usefully
        >> reassigned to some "official" Unicode codepoint elsewhere. E000 to E028
        >> means forty-one codepoints, it ought not to be a big problem.
        >
        > Searching revealed a few proposals for these character ranges. And
        > this page has a confusing summary:
        > http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Unicode/Character_reference/E000-EFFF
        > "private use" but it does have a table with characters.

        Yes; in my browser and with my usual font most (but not all) of them are
        CJK fullwidth ideograms and full-width counterparts of halfwidth math
        symbols etc. A few are (halfwidth) Latin accented letters which even
        exist in Latin1 i.e. below U+0100 !!! For instance (in my browser)
        U+E023 to U+E081 look like duplicates of ASCII 0x21 to 0x7E in the same
        order. Note however the last sentence immediately before the table:

        «The repertoire seen with your computer's font will most likely not be
        the same as with other computers or fonts.»

        And indeed I see a different glyph for those codepoints in gvim with my
        usual 'guifont', which is not the same as my browser's usual serif and
        sans-serif fonts.

        >
        > Let's remove these digraphs. I can't imagine anyone is using them.
        >

        Neither can I.


        Best regards,
        Tony.
        --
        LAUNCELOT leaps into SHOT with a mighty cry and runs the GUARD
        through and
        hacks him to the floor. Blood. Swashbuckling music (perhaps).
        LAUNCELOT races through into the castle screaming.
        SECOND SENTRY: Hey!
        "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" PYTHON (MONTY)
        PICTURES LTD

        --
        You received this message from the "vim_multibyte" maillist.
        For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.