More unicode blocks?

More unicode blocks?

[Shaddy Baddah]

Hi,

Today, I finally did what I had resolved to do some time ago. I delved
into emacs's unicode support facilities.

I am a little disappointed, because it has become apparent that the
unicode character set support is limited to 3 specific blocks of the
full unicode character set, those being the blocks that start and end at
the indexes expressed in mule-unicode-0100-24ff, mule-unicode-2500-33ff
and mule-unicode-e000-ffff.

The blocks that I am interested in are the CJK Unified Ideographs blocks
, that start at unicode index 0x4E00. Specifically, the characters that
are shared by the character set encoded via the big5 encoding scheme.

I have no problems displaying and editing these characters under the
big5 coding scheme, so they are obviously well supported by emacs (and
it's internal coding scheme, right?).

So, what is the impediment, or perhaps rationale, behind the lack of
support for the additional unicode blocks at this stage of Emacs
development?

Is it simply to do with someone having to implement some type of
character translation tables, or is there/how much more is there to it?

Regards,
Shaddy

P.S: please honour my reply-to email field.

Re: More unicode blocks?

[Shaddy Baddah]

Hi,

Shaddy Baddah wrote:
> I have no problems displaying and editing these characters under the
> big5 coding scheme, so they are obviously well supported by emacs (and
> it's internal coding scheme, right?).
> 
> So, what is the impediment, or perhaps rationale, behind the lack of
> support for the additional unicode blocks at this stage of Emacs
> development?
> 
> Is it simply to do with someone having to implement some type of
> character translation tables, or is there/how much more is there to it?

Sorry to bump this, but I really am dying to know (I don't want to be
forced into using eclipse for my editing of utf-8 encoded traditional
chines characters. I'm willing to do the hard labour of mappings to
avoid this).

TIA,
Shaddy

P.S: Is the emacs community dwindling, and does that explain the
unenthusiastic (well... non-existent) response to my questions?

P.S.S:

> P.S: please honour my reply-to email field.
^^^

Re: More unicode blocks?

[Charles philip Chan]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 537 bytes --]

On 28 Sep 2005, Shaddy.Baddah@msa.hinet.net wrote:

> Sorry to bump this, but I really am dying to know (I don't want to be
> forced into using eclipse for my editing of utf-8 encoded traditional
> chines characters. I'm willing to do the hard labour of mappings to
> avoid this).

There is already a "unicode-2" branch in development. It will be merged
into Emacs shortly after the release of Emacs 22.1.

Charles

-- 
"...and scantily clad females, of course.  Who cares if it's below zero
outside"
(By Linus Torvalds)

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 152 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Help-gnu-emacs mailing list
Help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnu-emacs

Re: More unicode blocks?

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

Shaddy Baddah <Shaddy.Baddah@msa.hinet.net> writes:

> P.S: Is the emacs community dwindling, and does that explain the
> unenthusiastic (well... non-existent) response to my questions?

when you ask this question, the community dwindles.
perhaps when you ask another, something else will happen.

thi

Re: More unicode blocks?

[Kevin Rodgers]

Shaddy Baddah wrote:
 > Today, I finally did what I had resolved to do some time ago. I delved
 > into emacs's unicode support facilities.
 >
 > I am a little disappointed, because it has become apparent that the
 > unicode character set support is limited to 3 specific blocks of the
 > full unicode character set, those being the blocks that start and end at
 > the indexes expressed in mule-unicode-0100-24ff, mule-unicode-2500-33ff
 > and mule-unicode-e000-ffff.
 >
 > The blocks that I am interested in are the CJK Unified Ideographs blocks
 > , that start at unicode index 0x4E00. Specifically, the characters that
 > are shared by the character set encoded via the big5 encoding scheme.

Perhaps you should try Emacs 22 (aka CVS Emacs).  Here are some items
from its etc/NEWS file:

---
*** The utf-8/16 coding systems have been enhanced.
By default, untranslatable utf-8 sequences are simply composed into
single quasi-characters.  User option `utf-translate-cjk-mode' (it is
turned on by default) arranges to translate many utf-8 CJK character
sequences into real Emacs characters in a similar way to the Mule-UCS
system.  As this loads a fairly big data on demand, people who are not
interested in CJK characters may want to customize it to nil.
You can augment/amend the CJK translation via hash tables
`ucs-mule-cjk-to-unicode' and `ucs-unicode-to-mule-cjk'.  The utf-8
coding system now also encodes characters from most of Emacs's
one-dimensional internal charsets, specifically the ISO-8859 ones.
The utf-16 coding system is affected similarly.

---
*** A new coding system `euc-tw' has been added for traditional Chinese
in CNS encoding; it accepts both Big 5 and CNS as input; on saving,
Big 5 is then converted to CNS.

---
*** New variable `utf-translate-cjk-unicode-range' controls which
Unicode characters to translate in `utf-translate-cjk-mode'.

---
*** iso-10646-1 (`Unicode') fonts can be used to display any range of
characters encodable by the utf-8 coding system.  Just specify the
fontset appropriately.

 > I have no problems displaying and editing these characters under the
 > big5 coding scheme, so they are obviously well supported by emacs (and
 > it's internal coding scheme, right?).
 >
 > So, what is the impediment, or perhaps rationale, behind the lack of
 > support for the additional unicode blocks at this stage of Emacs
 > development?
 >
 > Is it simply to do with someone having to implement some type of
 > character translation tables, or is there/how much more is there to it?

Sorry, I don't know the answers to those questions.

-- 
Kevin Rodgers