Re: Implementing charset-aware X font names [was: Cyrillic vs UTF-8]

[Kenichi Handa <handa@m17n.org>]

In article <87ist17vzu.fsf_-_@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:
> Instead, the font names and properties should provide encoding range
> specifications instead of the useless "1" (which in ISO 10646-1 is not
> an encoding specification, really).  As a first take, I think a
> reasonable way to do this would be to specify that for the iso10646
> registry the encoding field of an XLFD name should contain a
> comma-separated list of Unicode block names, or a comma-separated list
> of hex ranges xxxx..yyyy (can't use hyphens for the ranges,
> obviously).

I fully agree with that idea.

[...]
> This would also allow Emacs and other smart apps to create virtual
> fonts (ie, in faces) by requesting Ryumin Light for the Han and Kana
> blocks and Times-Roman for the Basic Latin and Latin-1 Supplement
> blocks, as an alternative to X Font Sets.  (This would be nearly
> trivial to implement in XEmacs since we use specifiers to implement
> faces, and specifiers already do magic to connect charsets to font
> registries.  I suppose it would be more work in GNU Emacs, but I
> haven't looked at Emacs's font set code.)

We connect charsets to font registries vis fontset.  And in
the emacs-unicode version, we have enhanced it so that we
can connect scripts, charsets, range of characters to
multiple font specs.  In addtion, in emacs-unicode, we
separate the concept of font encoding and font repertory,
and for *-iso10646-1 fonts, we checks the font contents to
get the true repertory as a char table.

---
Ken'ichi HANDA
handa@m17n.org