Subject: bug#39659: 27.0.60; inappropriate han script definition in char-script-table

From: handa <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2020 10:13:41 +0900

In article <[email-masked]>, Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]> writes:

> > The script names were at first assigned to help fontset.el which sets up
> > the default fontset by using script names in defining font specs (for
> > CHARSTE_REGISTRY of X fonts or "script" of OpenType fonts).  So there
> > was no precise semantics.

> OK, but would you agree that the latter group of character blocks,
> i.e.

>  3200-33FF
>  4DC0-4DFF
>  FE30-FE4F
>  1F200-1F2FF

> should be in the cjk-misc category?  Or, to phrase this differently:
> why was cjk-misc created in the first place,

When I defined them, it was a transion period of font-related
environment.  Af far as I remmeber, cjk-misc was introduced later for
fonts that covers characters used in CJK environment but not yet
covered by legacy CJK X fonts (JISX0208, JISX0212, GB2312, KSC5601).

> since the only difference between it and han in the default fontset
> seems to be this single element:
> 	  (nil . "JISX0213.2004-1")
> which is present for the han script, but absent for cjk-misc.  

The definition of the default fontset had been changed frequently on
the change of the font-related environment.  Perhaps the current setting
must be re-considered based on the current font-related environment.

> > I think it is ok to change/fix char-script-table to improve some
> > behavior of Emacs without breaking fontset.el.

> Can you elaborate about this?  I don't think I understand which fixes
> you had in mind, and how they could or could not break fontset.el.

As I don't know the tendency of the recent font-related environment, I
can not suggest how to fix the current setting.  All I can say is that ,
when someone changes char-script-table, he should also check how script
is used for the definition of the default fontset.

---
K. Handa
[email-masked]