From: Mark Jamsek Subject: Re: tog: don't embded utf8 glyphs in tog.c To: Christian Weisgerber Cc: gameoftrees@openbsd.org Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 01:23:47 +1000 On 22-09-24 03:17PM, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > Mark Jamsek: > > > This fixes the problem stsp reported of making utf8 enabled editors > > necessary to browse the code. > > > > I also found prettier single guillemets to wrap the control chars. > > What are the chances of a font not containing those characters and > presenting the user with some replacement box? I'm not sure how to get a reliable measure on that, tbh, but will investigate further. According to stsp, gnome and xfce support it out of the box, I'll learn which other desktop environments also support it by default. I can't recall if base xterm did. A cursory search produced a couple lists of fonts that apparently support the glyph[0,1]. The lists, however, are neither exhaustive nor authoritative; for example, spleen also supports it, but spleen is not mentioned. If it were a browser app, apparently 95% of users could view it[2]. > Why not simply use <...> everywhere? This is what we do if the user has not set a UTF-8 locale. We also do this with borders, for example, and use one glyph if UTF-8 is enabled and another if not. I think it's nice to have a couple minor distinctions between the two supported locales. I also think it's reasonable to expect that most users who have specified a UTF-8 locale are aware that a capable UTF-8 font is required--particularly if presented with replacement characters. But I'm happy to accept that I'm wrong in this expectation. That said, after I proposed documenting this, I had a bit of a search in the FAQ and related man pages but didn't find any mention that a more capable font might be needed if glyphs aren't rendered correctly when running UTF-8. So maybe there're more unaware users than anticpated? > Maybe it's time for a tog-x11 (GTK, Qt, whatever) so people can go > all out on graphical design? I don't want to go all out on graphical design so have no desire to create another tog flavour. But if someone wanted to do that, I'd support their effort as much as time permits. [0]: https://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2039/fontsupport.htm [1]: https://www.zuga.net/articles/unicode/character/2039 [2]: https://www.unicompat.com/2039 -- Mark Jamsek GPG: F2FF 13DE 6A06 C471 CA80 E6E2 2930 DC66 86EE CF68