On 22-09-17 12:15PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 01:06:27PM +0300, Mikhail wrote:
> > I use OpenBSD snap, xterm and fixed font, with this setup I see
> > rectangles around some chars, default font don't support those angle
> > brackets, is it something to be considered, and maybe replaced with
> > usual < > symbols?

I use xterm too but with `XTerm*faceName: Mono`, which renders the
glyphs properly. As stsp noted, when using utf8, a font capable of
displaying the glyphs is also needed. I can't recall the others I've
used in the past but there have been a couple that also display many
utf8 glyphs nicely. Alternatively, if another font isn't wanted, `export
LC_ALL=C` will use <>, but then the borders will also be drawn with |-.
We might be able to find another pretty glyph that more fonts render
right. I just shared a diff with a different guillemet glyph that might
render with fixed.

> OpenBSD's default behaviour is still tuned towards ASCII-only.
> When using UTF-8 you should also configure a font which can display
> the fancy glyphs. The Dejavu font should work: In ~/.Xdefaults:
>   XTerm*Font: -Misc-Fixed-Medium-R-Normal--18-120-100-100-C-90-ISO10646-1
> At least it was working for me 12 years ago:
> https://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20100729233638
> Nowadays I use gnome/xfce where fonts are nice out of the box.

Should we perhaps make a note of this in tog(1)? Something to the effect
of:

  If UTF-8 is enabled and some glyphs appear to render incorrectly,
  a more capable font such as Dejavu or Monospace Regular should be
  used.

-- 
Mark Jamsek <fnc.bsdbox.org>
GPG: F2FF 13DE 6A06 C471 CA80  E6E2 2930 DC66 86EE CF68