From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#24510: 25.1; Info: searching for ` does not find what looks like ` Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 20:57:39 +0300 Message-ID: <83pontb2p8.fsf@gnu.org> References: <<6905ca6f-0573-4a2b-b346-d5df47862e09@default> <<83intneq2g.fsf@gnu.org> <<7f9c8f95-a04d-4e94-9c17-8a348bf89215@default> <<83d1jvds1t.fsf@gnu.org> <83mviycxse.fsf@gnu.org> <8f6d6767-e5f4-79cc-ac3f-199cc58e92e2@gmail.com> <83fuopdaf2.fsf@gnu.org> <0913a9f7-519f-e48a-3132-3d1b16267851@gmail.com> <83twd5b4yr.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1474739919 23998 195.159.176.226 (24 Sep 2016 17:58:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 17:58:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 24510@debbugs.gnu.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 24 19:58:35 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bnrDK-0003hS-6O for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 19:58:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34992 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bnrDI-0003u7-FM for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 13:58:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40322) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bnrDC-0003tv-NV for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 13:58:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bnrD8-000732-Nj for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 13:58:06 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:56784) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bnrD8-00072y-KL for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 13:58:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bnrD8-00071D-Fw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 13:58:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 17:58:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 24510 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 24510-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B24510.147473988026971 (code B ref 24510); Sat, 24 Sep 2016 17:58:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 24510) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Sep 2016 17:58:00 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34741 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bnrD5-00070w-NZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 13:57:59 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:49271) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bnrD4-00070i-BH for 24510@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 13:57:58 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bnrCv-0006wW-8z for 24510@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 13:57:53 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:41360) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bnrCv-0006vh-5b; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 13:57:49 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2083 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bnrCr-00039O-AV; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 13:57:47 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel on Sat, 24 Sep 2016 13:24:50 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:123652 Archived-At: > Cc: 24510@debbugs.gnu.org > From: Clément Pit--Claudel > Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 13:24:50 -0400 > > > Not just the number of characters matters: the number of Unicode > > blocks also matters, maybe even more. Each block is some script, so > > supporting less blocks means less scripts supported by the default > > font. Emacs will have then look for a different font, which makes > > less pleasant display, creates text alignment problems, etc. > > Thanks for the explanation. But MingLiu supports 34 blocks, while Courier New supports 23. In particular, MingLiu has support for traditional Chinese and Japanese Hiragana and Katakana, which Courier New lacks. Out of 34 blocks MingLiu supports, one third is CJK blocks. The other blocks support Latin and Greek scripts, and that's about all. We don't use Courier New for CJK anyway, as it doesn't cover those well. But neither does Consolas, and I find it hard to believe you are saying that we should switch from Courier New to MingLiu as the default font: that'd be absurd. > > I personally consider Consolas worse than Courier New, because > > Consolas's coverage is clearly biased towards European scripts. > > True. But Courier is biased too. It's less biased, though. > In fact, virtually all programming fonts are biased in that way, maybe as an unfortunate artifact of most programming languages themselves being biased towards ASCII. In selecting the default Emacs font, we're trying to ensure that users have an agreeable experience: if most of what they look at in a monospace font is covered by ASCII, then it's not clear to me that it makes sense to select a monospace font based on coverage only. Emacs supports non-programming applications as well, not just programming modes. In fact, the trigger for this discussion was Info, a non-programming mode very close to Text mode. > > One reason is that Emacs has a wider range of different > > applications, where being able to support as many languages and > > scripts as possible is more important than in Studio or even Vim. > > E.g., at least some of the editors you mention are never used as > > email/news clients or Web browsers, where the ability to support as > > many scripts as possible is important. > > Do many of these applications require a monospace font? We use a monospaced font for the default face because it suits well both programming and non-programming modes, and because aligning text is much easier with such a font. Text alignment is important in modes that present summaries in tabular form, like modes that show listing of buffers, email summaries, Dired, Proced, etc. > Eww now defaults to a proportional face, doesn't it? By default, yes; but there's "M-x eww-toggle-fonts".