From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chong Yidong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#4895: 23.1; Incorrect font selected Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 13:26:55 +0800 Message-ID: <87wr2d33og.fsf@gnu.org> References: <5f0660120911092215v48f00477l5f2c68855507ab4b@mail.gmail.com> <87hbt1siju.fsf@mail.jurta.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1341811677 21352 80.91.229.3 (9 Jul 2012 05:27:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 05:27:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 4895@debbugs.gnu.org, cmr.pent@gmail.com, Kenichi Handa To: Juri Linkov Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 09 07:27:56 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1So6Vn-0003g8-JJ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 07:27:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52732 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1So6Vm-0008Rp-DL for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 01:27:54 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:60287) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1So6Vj-0008Rk-5d for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 01:27:52 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1So6Vh-0001A3-E6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 01:27:50 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:47744) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1So6Vh-00019y-Af for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 01:27:49 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1So6ak-0006j3-4k for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 01:33:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Chong Yidong Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 05:33:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 4895 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 4895-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B4895.134181194025801 (code B ref 4895); Mon, 09 Jul 2012 05:33:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 4895) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Jul 2012 05:32:20 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57290 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1So6a4-0006i6-Jm for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 01:32:20 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:47335) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1So6a2-0006hy-5n for 4895@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 01:32:19 -0400 Original-Received: from [155.69.17.56] (port=49719 helo=ulysses) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1So6Uv-0002Qi-Ax; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 01:27:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87hbt1siju.fsf@mail.jurta.org> (Juri Linkov's message of "Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:45:09 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:61746 Archived-At: Juri Linkov writes: >>> Thanks for the explanation. Do you think it's still valid not to >>> prefer unicode fonts to fonts with specific registries? I believe the >>> unicode is dominating by now, at least for european languages. >> >> I'm not sure. At least, a while ago, bitmap fonts of legacy >> registries (e.g. iso8859-X, koi8, etc) are better than >> unicode bitmap fonts. I think using cp1251 fonts for >> cp1251-encoded file is a good default even now. First of >> all, if unicode is dominating by now, the chance of reading >> cp1251 files should be rare. > > Unfortunately, cp1251 is still common in the documents created on > Windows. Opening such documents in Emacs on GNU/Linux often results > in a very ugly look, especially when cp1251 text is surrounded > by Latin or Unicode characters. Unicode fonts are well developed and > maintained unlike legacy cp1251 fonts that are less relevant nowadays. Presumably, unicode fonts should have even better coverage now than three years ago, when this discussion first took place. Any objections to making the switch? Also, where in the code does this >> when you read a file with cp1251, the charset property >> `cp1251' is put on the buffer text. Thus the font-selector >> prefers a font whose registry is "microsoft-cp1251". occur? I took a quick look at the documentation, e.g. the docstring of new-fontset, and couldn't find the explanation of how the font-selector chooses the font to use from the list of font specifications. If the list of font specifications is not given in order of priority, that should be clearly explained somewhere.