Re: bug#4090: Bug#541704: emacs-snapshot ruins w3m-el-snapshot tables

[Kenichi Handa <handa@xxxxxxxx>]

In article <873a7poeoy.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx>, jidanni@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:

>>>>>> "K" == Kenichi Handa <handa@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> In the trunk of CVS, I added CJK fonts for those box-drawing
>>> characters in the default fontset.  So, in CJK environment,
>>> CJK fonts are preferred.  Perhaps, the selected CJK font
>>> claims that it has glyphs for those characters, but actually
>>> doesn't contain valid glyphs.  I think those vanishing
>>> characters has at least 1 dot width of space.  Please put
>>> cursor on one of them and type C-u C-x = to check which font
>>> is selected for it.

>>> • │ ┌ ┐ └ ┘ ├ ┤ ┬ ┴ ┼
> In emacs23, all are visible, and very nice
>    x:-efont-fixed-medium-r-normal--16-160-75-75-c-80-iso10646-1
> In emacs-snapshot all are invisible in w3m-el-snapshot, but visible but
> ugly replying here in gnus.  "•" is the same
>    x:-efont-fixed-medium-r-normal--16-160-75-75-c-80-iso10646-1
> but all the rest are
>    x:-eten-fixed-medium-r-normal--16-150-75-75-c-160-big5.eten-0

Your answer is too terse for me to understand your situation
correctly.  Do you mean that the same font:
   x:-eten-fixed-medium-r-normal--16-150-75-75-c-160-big5.eten-0
is selected for "│┌..." in the invisible case and in the
ugly case?  And what do you mean by "ugly"?  Isn't it
possible to provide the screen-shot of that ugly case?

---
Kenichi Handa
handa@xxxxxxxx