From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8130 invoked by alias); 4 Sep 2018 18:41:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 7195 invoked by uid 89); 4 Sep 2018 18:41:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=opinion, 04092018, 04.09.2018, hardly X-HELO: mout.kundenserver.de Received: from mout.kundenserver.de (HELO mout.kundenserver.de) (217.72.192.75) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Sep 2018 18:41:50 +0000 Received: from [192.168.178.45] ([95.91.209.148]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue105 [212.227.15.183]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MYePa-1gRSZ723ta-00VTNw for ; Tue, 04 Sep 2018 20:41:47 +0200 Subject: Re: Cygwin fails to utilize Unicode replacement character To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <5b8eccee.1c69fb81.12eaa.84a2@mx.google.com> From: Thomas Wolff Message-ID: <4a728822-3c4f-c99f-51cd-63822445aa18@towo.net> Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2018 18:41:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5b8eccee.1c69fb81.12eaa.84a2@mx.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-09/txt/msg00073.txt.bz2 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