Re: Full mandoc locale support committed.

[Yuri Pankov <yuri.pankov@gmail.com>]

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 09:26:15AM +0200, Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
> On Fri, 20.05.2011 at 00:49:21 +0200, Kristaps Dzonsons wrote:
> > On 19/05/2011 22:28, Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
> > > On Wed, 18.05.2011 at 01:07:28 +0200, Kristaps Dzonsons wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> With this last commit, initial [full] locale support has been fitted
> > >> into mandoc!  Attached is eye-candy: a manual full of random Unicode
> > >> input (\[uNNNN]) first with -Tascii, then with -Tlocale.
> > >>
> > >>   From the manual:
> > >>
> > >>      Locale Output
> > >>        Locale-depending output encoding is triggered with -Tlocale.
> > >>        This option is not available on all systems: systems without
> > >>        locale support, or those whose internal representation is not
> > >>        natively UCS-4, will fall back to -Tascii.  See ASCII Output
> > >>        for font style specification and available command-line
> > >>        arguments.
> > >
> > > Cool stuff! However, and this might be due to a case of "we've always
> > > been doing it that way"-thinking: I think this automagic is in the wrong
> > > place.
> > >
> > > There might be cases, where I really want ASCII output no matter what my
> > > locale is (this is covered by -Tascii right now), and there might be
> > > cases where I want UTF-8 output, no matter what the current locale is.
> > > Perhaps because I write the output to disk or to some other
> > > postprocessor.
> > >
> > > What I'm arguing is that we need to have a -Tutf8 mode and that perhaps
> > > *not* specifying *any* -T value turns on the automagic? This would make
> > > more sense from a users standpoint, IMHO.
> > 
> > Ulrich,
> > 
> > I agree.  And we also want -Tutf8 for groff compatibility.
> > 
> > In short, I'll have -Tutf8 done for the next release.  It's simply a 
> > matter of indicating *which* locale when using setlocale().
> > 
> > (By the way, does FreeBSD have the STDC_ISO_10646, whether explicitly or 
> > implicitly?)
> 
> It certainly isn't defined anywhere, and it also doesn't seem to be
> implemented, as a short test using \[uc3bc] didn't produce ü but a
> missing-glyph symbol. :(

It does work for me on 8.2 and -CURRENT (once I remove the check for
STDC_ISO_10646 from term_ascii.c and resulting #undef), though \[uc3bc]
looks like some chinese or japanese glyph, you probably want \[u00fc]
for the 'ü' :-)


Yuri
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv