From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Word boundary Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 06:12:30 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87tzbh7kd9.fsf@jurta.org> <87tzb5ikrw.fsf@jurta.org> <87mygusydi.fsf_-_@jurta.org> <87bpx66gdx.fsf@catnip.gol.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1225080765 13986 80.91.229.12 (27 Oct 2008 04:12:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 04:12:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: juri@jurta.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, miles@gnu.org To: Kenichi Handa Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 27 05:13:46 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KuJU9-0002Kt-Mm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 05:13:45 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48937 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KuJT3-0005Fe-5r for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 00:12:37 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KuJSy-0005FZ-PN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 00:12:32 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KuJSw-0005FN-Pl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 00:12:31 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39503 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KuJSw-0005FK-JM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 00:12:30 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout5.012.net.il ([84.95.2.13]:13694) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KuJSv-0004ao-Da; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 00:12:29 -0400 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.192.143]) by i_mtaout5.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0K9D00D60QFD69H1@i_mtaout5.012.net.il>; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 06:14:02 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 9.1 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:105026 Archived-At: > From: Kenichi Handa > CC: eliz@gnu.org, juri@jurta.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:27:53 +0900 > > In article <87bpx66gdx.fsf@catnip.gol.com>, Miles Bader writes: > > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > >>> Normally word breaking does not require breaking between > >>> different scripts. However, adding that capability may be > >>> useful in combination with other extensions of word > >>> segmentation. For example, ... > > > > > > So maybe we should have a user option to enable that, but I think it > > > should be off by default. > > > What would the practical effect of that be? Would it break filling in Japanese? > > I think no. Filling is related to line-breaking, and it > should be treated differently from word-breaking. Right. In addition, I think Japanese is already pretty well covered by the advice in UAX#29 anyway, as it has specific rules for handling Katakana and Hiragana.