Re: MML charset tag regression

[Kenichi Handa <handa@m17n.org>]

In article <rzqwug1ec3p.fsf@albion.dl.ac.uk>, Dave Love <d.love@dl.ac.uk> writes:

> Kenichi Handa <handa@m17n.org> writes:
>>  But, ctext itself doesn't have to support it, i.e., decode it as the
>>  sender's intention.

> But then you might as well ignore extended segments entirely, and I
> assume it must decode it if the name for the segment is registered.
> However, the CTEXT spec says that you must use extended segments
> for private charsets.

>>  It's impossible to know about all possible
>>  encoding names that will be used in the extended segment.

> Sure.  I was holding off changes in this area until I convinced myself
> what is the best way to do the heuristic conversion between external
> charset names and Emacs names.  (Sorry, I could have saved you the
> work.)  At least you have a chance of interpreting the names, but you
> can't know anything about private charset definitions, even if they
> were allowed.  Extended segment names are supposed to be registered
> and follow font encoding names, of course.

I'm sorry but I can't see how, you think, the current ctext
and ctext-with-extensions should be changed.   Could you
give me a concrete proposal?

>>  Surely it's not.  ctext and compound-text-with-extensions
>>  encode text differently.  But, I don't think
>>  compound-text-with-extensions implies an extended version of
>>  ctext.

> It does to me, and that was clearly intended.

Perhaps the last words "-with-extentions" was wrong.  I
thought it can mean "-using-extended-segment".  But, of
course I'm not a native English speaker, thus ...

> It has been changed recently, but in my Emacs it says:

> x -- compound-text-with-extensions (alias: x-ctext-with-extensions ctext-with-extensions)
>   Compound text encoding with ICCCM Extended Segment extensions.

This is already changed to;
    Compound text encoding with extended segments.

> and the NEWS entry says only some versions of X use extended segments.

Isn't it correct?

> Giving the impression of not following the CTEXT spec can't help with
> trying to persuade someone else to fix their problems, as I hope you
> can do.

> Anyhow the point is that whatever's called compound-text should deal
> with extended segments.

If "deal with" means "correctly decode as senders
intention", it's impossible.  If "deal with" just means
"at least don't collapse", now they do.

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