People who can read CJK glyphs have used larger font sizes so far and
will continue to do so in the future. Font size has nothing whatsoever
to do with the encoding. It would be silly to decide (as Netscape 4 did
Of course not, it has a lot to do with their readability.
Call me weird but even when I do not recognize a single glyph (be it
CJK, Arabic, Indic, Georgian, old Byzantic musical notation, ...) I do
like the display much more if all the characters are rendered, instead
of being empty/black boxes or Spanish question marks.
You obviously haven't used xterm recently in a UTF-8 locale. Look at the
attached UTF-8 file with "vim 6.0" or "cat 0.94c" or newer
in a UTF-8 locale!
Is like six months ago recently enough?
For an update:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/unicode.html#xterm
Markus
Note that I'm not trying to underestimate the efforts of X11 project
(or any other freely available software project) on this matter,
the more Unicode support we have the better (I'm myself kicking Perl
further along on this path). I was just trying to point out that
"displaying UTF-8 text" is a rather sweeping statement, and taken to
extremes, a rather demanding one. (I have exchanged email with Daniel
in the past and based on that I'd guess that MES wouldn't quite cut it
for him: Ethiopic and Amer-Indian syllabaries would.)
And thanks for all the information, and the FAQ!
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
