Re: Print eight-bit-* characters with ps-print

[Kenichi Handa]

"Eli Zaretskii" <address@hidden> writes:
>>  Please try to add more delq for eight-bit-* here, and set
>>  ps-print-control-characters to `8-bit' (the default is
>>  `8-bit-control').  Then all eight-bit-* should be printed in
>>  octal form.  Isn't it what you want?

> Well, having eight-bit-* characters printed as octal escapes is less
> than optimal.  The code I posted does slightly better: it prints them
> in the default font built into the PostScript printer (usually
> Latin-1).

> As I said, this is not 100% correct, but in many cases it matches what
> you see on the screen.  And it certainly is nicer than the octal
> escapes.

Ah, I think I see your point.  Printing such a character by
octal or a glyph of the same code of ASCII font should be
controlled by ps-print-control-characters.  But, in the
latter case, the ASCII font should by the builtin font found
in ps-font-info-database, not what specified in
ps-mule-font-info-database (e.g. "lt1-24-etl.bdf" if
ps-multibyte-buffer is bdf-font).  Is that what you mean?

Then, I agree with your change.  But, anyway, we must delete
eight-bit-* from `charset' variable because we should avoid
that unnecessary warning "Font for some characters not
found, ..." even if ps-multibyte-buffer is nil.

>>  > (Btw, it looks like iso-safe can safely encode eight-bit-* characters.
>>  > If that's true, I think we should update its doc string.  Handa-san,
>>  > can you please comment on this?)
>>  
>>  This is a difficult part.  Currently, as far as I remember
>>  all coding-systems encode them as is.  They are treated as
>>  special bytes that should be written out as is.  I'm not
>>  sure whether or not we should make iso-safe as an exception.
>>  Instead, how about documenting clearly that there's a super
>>  rule that any coding system encodes eight-bit-* as is?

> I will look for a proper place, thanks.

Thank you.

---
Ken'ichi HANDA
address@hidden