Cygwin fails to utilize Unicode replacement character
Thomas Wolff
towo@towo.net
Tue Sep 4 14:18:00 GMT 2018
On 04.09.2018 14:49, David Macek wrote:
> On 4. 9. 2018 11:00, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> We either keep 0xfffd now and the user gets the nodef glyph, or I revert
>> the patch and let the console print 0x2592 MEDIUM SHADE again.
>>
>> Decision has to be made today. I will release 2.11.1 tomorrow.
>
> I vote for keeping the patch and printing 0xFFFD. It's okay in the
> default case,
> it's exactly what was requested in the non-standard font case and it's
> future
> proof in case ConHost implements rendering using fallback fonts.
>
My vote is against the patch because the nodef glyph will often be just
blank space which is certainly worse than â.
If conhost does not provide a reasonable way to enquire 0xFFFD
availability it's conhost's fault, not cygwin's so why should cygwin
implement a bad compromise. If conhost ever improves, cygwin can adapt.
Thomas
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
More information about the Cygwin
mailing list