[Bug libc/4335] EastAsianAmbiguous character width is always 1 in UTF-8 locale

["d+bugzilla at vdr dot jp" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>]

------- Additional Comments From d+bugzilla at vdr dot jp  2008-11-25 17:27 -------
Here is rxvt-unicode author's opinion.

http://lists.schmorp.de/pipermail/rxvt-unicode/2007q1/000402.html

> > > > ja_JP.eucJP locale is fixed by src/rxvt.h r1.265.
> > > > But ja_JP.UTF-8 locale is still weird.
> > >
> > > No, its correct, thats what the locale specified.
> >
> > Do you mean that ja_JP.UTF-8 locale specifies
> > "0xd7" (EastAsianAmbiguous) is HALFWIDTH and
> > rxvt-unicode simply respects it?
> 
> Basically, yes. At least that is how it *should* be: urxvt always respects
> your locale, as should all other programs do too. If your locale says
> something and urxvt doesn't follow that, that is considered a bug in
> urxvt.
> 
> > > > Do you plan to merge doc/solaris9.patch?
> > >
> > > No, thats an ugly hack around solaris being broken.
> >
> > Uh, I mean mk_wcwidth() that is a part of doc/solaris9.patch.
> > mk_wcwidth() variant with configurable option is imported into vim,
> > xterm and so on.
> 
> Yes, they are all buggy as long as they use that.
> 
> > Yes, rxvt-unicode respects that locale tells.
> > But vim, xterm, etc have option that gives EastAsianAmbiguous
> > special treatment that EastAsiwnAmbiguous char width is 2.
> > vim has ambiwidth=double option, xterm has -cjk_width option.
> 
> Yes, I know. But its stupid to add such hacks to each and every program
> and force the user to enable them. The right way is to use or modify the
> locale, then suddenly all well-written programs with or without such hacks
> just magically work.
> 
> Ignoring the locale is just wrong. It leads to interoperability
> problems between programs that simply wouldn't exist if everybody just
> respected the locale instead of relying on their own hacks.
> 
> The only justification for adding hacks is for systems that do not support
> required locales (such as one providing utf-8), but those systems either
> die or get upgraded, so the time is much better spent improving the locale
> system on those rare sytems rather than adding hacks to each and every
> program.
> 
> > Do you mean locale is wrong/broken then programs do not need to
> 
> If the locale specifies a character width that you do not want, then the
> locale is pretty much broken from your perspective, isn't it? At least its
> not the locale you want.
> 
> > Do I need to ask not rxvt-unicode but glibc?
> 
> I think glibc (or any software distribution either using it or something
> else) should provide the means to configure it regarding such details such
> as character width, at least for commonly wanted cases such as east asian
> widths.
> 
> I am open to reasoning against my arguments, but to change my mind one
> would have to overcome the arguments above. It just plain makes no
> sense to hack eahc and every program on the world to workaround locale
> limitations: there are far more editors and terminals around than libcs.

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4335

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.