Zahari Yurukov, on mer. 15 mars 2017 00:47:53 +0200, wrote: > > > And now you lose them in English, too. > > > > I don't understand this. Is there perhaps yet another bug that wasn't > > fixed or reported? > > > No, I mean if you use an English voice, but you don't use direct mode, > don't you want the unicode characters spoken? It's not really a "you don't want", but "I don't think we want to implement that". Unicode is awfully big, I don't think we want to include the pronunciation of 65536 glyphs in the kernel :) > It's worth noting that I send that letter just right before I saw you've > send a patch, Sure, I understand that :) I was just afraid that some bug was perhaps being overlooked > So I don't have other complaints about unicode reading. Ok, cool :) > > We'd have to think and code a bit about this. The kernel actually uses > > ucs-2 encoding, while people will probably rather feed the internal > > messages as utf-8 strings. But one has to know whether it's utf-8 or > > some 8bit character set which is being used. That question is actually > > related to pasting, for which we need to know the same :) > > Well, a byte order mark might be useful here. Or if there's no BOM, may > be assume UTF-8? That wouldn't allow people to just run echo "foobar" > /sys/something, while the kernel does know whether the console is in UTF-8 mode. > How did you know the ASCII encodings til now? That's the trick: you just didn't :) Speakup wouldn't care about which 8bit encoding was used, and would just send it to the softsynth. As long as the characters you write to /sys and what espeakup eats are encoded the same, there is no issue. But now, we have the in-kernel ucs-2 encoding, so we have to know. > > espeak doesn't speak spaces unless strongly being told to do so :) > > > Yes, that works. Thanks. Good :) Samuel _______________________________________________ Speakup mailing list Speakup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
