Re: utf-8 cjk translation bug?

[Dave Love <d.love@dl.ac.uk>]

Kenichi Handa <handa@m17n.org> writes:

>> I also chose the boundaries to avoid breaking the region
>> between the mule-unicode and CJK charsets.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand the meaning of the last sentence.

mule-unicode-2500-33ff overlaps with one of the CJK blocks.  You want
to avoid translating the part that overlaps to mule-unicode-2500-33ff
so that the block is displayed in a consistent font by default.  Is
that clear?

> Ah, right, they have double-width glyphs for those chars.
> But, I think there are still many those who are not using
> the recent XFree86, or who have not installed those fonts.

I would have expected them to have iso10646 fonts if they are using
utf-8 (for the sake of applications other than Emacs) but maybe that
isn't the case.  You are obviously in a better position than I am to
decide the right thing.

> And if I knew it took that long time to release the code
> that contains mule-unicode charsets, I'd implemented a
> single 3-dimensional charset that covers almost all Unicode
> characters (Charset-ID 159 is not yet used).

I may have the remains of the partial implementation somewhere.  It
almost looks attractive again, as I guess there is no likelihood of
Emacs 22 being released remotely soon...