From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 3 17:25:01 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FCF1F4B for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 17:25:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ateve@sohara.org) Received: from uk1rly2283.eechost.net (relay01a.mail.uk1.eechost.net [217.69.40.75]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 528DE1FC for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 17:25:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [31.186.37.179] (helo=smtp.marelmo.com) by uk1rly2283.eechost.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1U23JZ-0001ae-Ch for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sun, 03 Feb 2013 17:25:13 +0000 Received: from [192.168.63.1] (helo=steve.marelmo.com) by smtp.marelmo.com with smtp (Exim 4.80.1 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1U23JC-0000Ss-PL for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sun, 03 Feb 2013 17:24:50 +0000 Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 17:24:19 +0000 From: Steve O'Hara-Smith To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [kde-freebsd] tmux and konsole characters Message-Id: <20130203172419.3b3e89c01fea351d03fc4b7a@sohara.org> In-Reply-To: <510E9638.5010305@drenet.info> References: <510D35F8.8010004@drenet.info> <1359896784.8510.140661186191169.24EAC5DA@webmail.messagingengine.com> <510E9638.5010305@drenet.info> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.3.0 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd9.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth-Info: 15567@permanet.ie (plain) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 17:25:01 -0000 On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 11:54:16 -0500 Andre Goree wrote: > Thanks! That was it...I opened a new konsole window, set the encoding > to UTF-8 (which my arch linux box is using) and the lines show up fine. > > On a related note, I guess I can set LANG=en_US.UTF-8 in my .bashrc and > have that as my default, no? Any nuances on en_US.UTF-8 vs. ISO8859? > I've never really ever needed to deal with locales before, but I believe > UTF-8 offers more characters, no? The iso8859 encodings are 256 character maps, the UTF-8 encoding covers the entire million character range of unicode (or iso10646 which amounts to the same thing) how well it displays depends on the font being used. This one has pretty good coverage. -misc-fixed-medium-*-*-*-*-140-*-*-*-*-iso10646-* There's a wonderful file around called UTF-9-demo.txt produced by Markus Kuhn which shows off the capability of UTF-8 pretty well, and tests your font support unmercifully (the font above can cope with the whole document, and an up to date urxvt handles the alignment correctly). There is a great deal to be said for adopting unicode by default, and generally in the form of UTF-8. I regard the iso8859 encodings as basically obsolete. Unicode has it's faults, but it is the best general purpose encoding system available. There are also tools for unicode that can handle problems such as correctly sorting text for different languages which is not as easy as you might think. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith