From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Emfox Zhou Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs antialiasing in X Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:53:06 +0800 Message-ID: <87irsmkuzh.fsf@emfox.3322.org> References: <877j9ya8tu.fsf@boost-consulting.com> <200512220938.jBM9c8Lf021116@coolsville.localdomain> <873bjtoy1i.fsf@boost-consulting.com> <0B2B9218-7271-493B-A60D-F912E09E6E27@swipnet.se> <8764onlsq4.fsf@boost-consulting.com> <87oe2eisl2.fsf@boost-consulting.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1137297289 5629 80.91.229.2 (15 Jan 2006 03:54:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 03:54:49 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 15 04:54:48 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Exyya-0001N5-TW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 04:54:45 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Exz0o-0002T3-2q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 14 Jan 2006 22:57:02 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Exz0d-0002So-It for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Jan 2006 22:56:51 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Exz0b-0002SS-Vp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Jan 2006 22:56:51 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Exz0b-0002SP-Re for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Jan 2006 22:56:49 -0500 Original-Received: from [80.91.229.2] (helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA:16) (Exim 4.34) id 1Exz3s-0006Lu-AI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:00:12 -0500 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1ExyyK-0001LK-42 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 04:54:28 +0100 Original-Received: from 218.108.29.104 ([218.108.29.104]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 04:54:28 +0100 Original-Received: from EmfoxZhou by 218.108.29.104 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 04:54:28 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 40 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 218.108.29.104 User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/23.0.0 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:fUHKMBrhjxKzks8pRVYtbCfyhC0= X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:49114 Archived-At: David Abrahams writes: > I've started trying to merge these two, and I have a few questions. > It's pretty tough to figure out what to do about ChangeLog, NEWS, etc. > There are many differences, it isn't clear to me which branch is more > current, and I'm not so involved with emacs development that I can > make judgements about each item. Certainly XFT_JHD_BRANCH seems to > contain several cleanups and corrections to text present in > emacs-unicode-2. > > Any advice on that score? What about images? > > When I see something like > > ("%" . "໌") > ("'" . "ງ") > > in XFT_JHD_BRANCH and > > ("%" . "(1l(B") > ("'" . "(1'(B") > > in emacs-unicode-2, do I want to keep the latter, since the > character representation is changing? > > Also, would it be better to come up with a patch against > emacs-unicode-2 that adds XFT support, or vice-versa? I am inclined > towards the former. > I think emacs-unicode-2 is more recent, and a patch against emacs-unicode-2 to add XFT support is better. as a notice, I have tested both of the branches, and find the XFT branch could not deal properly with chinese, while the unicode one seems ok for everything. > Thanks, > -- > Dave Abrahams > Boost Consulting > www.boost-consulting.com