From: Hubert Figuiere (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Apr 25 2002 - 04:35:49 EDT
----- Forwarded message from email@example.com -----
To: Paul Rohr <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: selections and combining characters
From: Havoc Pennington <email@example.com>
Date: 24 Apr 2002 22:18:37 -0400
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Paul Rohr <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Of the three alternatives described in the Unicode book, I think we've
> started converging on a rough-but-not-overly-literate consensus that the
> least preferable option (for us) would be handling atomic character
The Pango is_cursor_position field currently corresponds to
"graphemes" (see page 126). The text on that page says
that a grapheme is the logical unit of text and "should behave as
units in terms of mouse selection, arrow key movement, backspacing,
and so on."
In discussion on the list there seemed to be some sentiment that the
Unicode grapheme algorithm doesn't give exactly the cursor behavior
that some languages expect, so we allow a language engine to override
and perhaps modify this.
There's also some indication (supported by the last paragraph of
section 5.12) that users want to be able to configure this or
have it be different in different situations. So we have some idea
that Pango (and GTK) will support that eventually. This will introduce
more subtle behaviors into GTK that would need to be synced with a
custom AbiWord implementation...
In any case the is_cursor_position field is defined to correspond
to where you should let people move the cursor, so you could certainly
just punt the issue to Pango for now.
To answer your question, I don't remember if the grapheme algorithm
comes up with "cluster" or "stack" or if it varies by language. In
any case it avoids the hard one (atomic).
----- End forwarded message -----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Apr 25 2002 - 04:35:52 EDT