Re: Cygwin fails to utilize Unicode replacement character

[Thomas Wolff <towo at towo dot net>]

Am 04.09.2018 um 20:20 schrieb Steven Penny:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 16:18:21, Thomas Wolff wrote:
> > My vote is against the patch because the nodef glyph will often be 
> > just blank space which is certainly worse than ▒.
> > 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.
>
> This is some dangerous commentary. I would like to counter it now with 
> some actual research.
No idea what you consider dangerous. Anyway, we obviously agree that 
hardly any available console font supports the REPLACEMENT CHARACTER. 
You had previously suggested code that might work (using CreateFont(0, 
0, ....)). Maybe you can sort out with Corinna how to get that work 
inside cygwin. Otherwise, my opinion:
- *working* fallback from FFFD to 2592: good
- revert to 2592: OK
- fix FFFD: not good, because the .notdef glyph is not an appropriate 
indication of illegal encoding (like broken UTF-8 bytes)
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