Re: CJK in (auctex)I18n

Reiner Steib <[email protected]> writes:

> I wonder about why this comment has been removed:
>
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> --- auctex.texi	21 Feb 2005 16:15:35 -0000	1.211
> +++ auctex.texi	23 Feb 2005 03:29:16 -0000	1.212
> @@ -2512,8 +2512,6 @@
>  European (Latin, Cyrillic, Greek) based languages, but special versions
>  of @TeX{} and Emacs are needed for Korean, Japanese, and Chinese.
>  
> -@c FIXME: Is Emacs 21.4 able to deal with CJK?
> -
>  @menu
>  * European::                    Using @AUCTeX{} with European Languages
>  * Japanese::                    Japanese @TeX{}
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> It refers to this text:
>
> ,----[ (info "(auctex)I18n") ]
> | There are several problems associated with editing non-English TeX with
> | GNU Emacs.  Modern versions of GNU Emacs and TeX are usable for
> | European (Latin, Cyrillic, Greek) based languages, but special versions
> | of TeX and Emacs are needed for Korean, Japanese, and Chinese.
> `----
>
> If the CVS version of Emacs(Emacs 22; previously supposed to become
> 21.4) is usable for CJK, we should mention it there instead of
> referring to `special versions of Emacs'.  This is why I added this
> comment.

AFAIK, Emacs-21.3 is usable for CJK, as well as any XEmacs containing
MULE (though MULE, at least for Unicode, is not officially supported
on the MULE version of XEmacs-21.4, which is not even available for
Windows AFAIR).

In general, "Modern versions" in the above paragraph refers to
Emacs-19 and early Emacs-20 variants, as well as non-MULE compilations
of XEmacs probably also at version 20 or later.

That's what I think I understand from the matter.  It may be that
Korean support is behind that of Japanese (MULE was contributed by a
Japanese university project IRC).  But I believe in general that
"usable for CJK" just means MULE.  I am copying Werner Lemberg with
this message, maybe he knows more about it.  Also some of our Japanese
contributors probably have more of a clue.

Basically, I guess the manual entry should be revised.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum