At 03:23 PM 02/11/2000 -0800, Frank da Cruz wrote:
>Doug Ewell wrote:
>
> > "Robert A. Rosenberg" <bob.rosenberg@digitscorp.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I would have removed the useless junk in the C1 range and put useful
> > > glyphs there. What ACTUAL purpose is served by wasting 32 codepoints
> > > to duplicate the C0 (x00-x1F) codes? I can see no reason why a
> > > character code needs to function as if the high bit is not there. If I
> > > strip the high bit off a character ALL the characters in the xA0-xFF
> > > range will display wrong so why preserve the C1 codes just so it
> > > FORMATS "correctly"? It is junk in any case so just display the
> > > formatting incorrectly.
> >
> > The C1 range contains 32 additional control characters, not just
> > duplicates of the C0 range, and it is my understanding that many
> > terminals do use these control codes, although PCs and Macs do not.
> >
>VT220 and above use them, Siemens Nixdorf terminals use them, and many
>others. These are directly from ISO 6429 and many of them are used to
>implement the character-set designation and invocation rules of ISO
>2022:
>
> SS2 - Single Shift 2
> SS3 - Single Shift 3
> LS1R - Locking Shift 1 Right
> LS2 - Locking Shift 2
> LS2R - Locking Shift 2 Right
> LS3 - Locking Shift 3
> LS3R - Locking Shift 3 Right
>
>These techniques are what allow (for example) a VT320 terminal to
>display a screen containing any mixture of ASCII, line/box drawing
>characters, math symbols, and accented Roman letters. But this is not
>an obscure feature of the VT320, it is an international standard that
>is used all over the world.
You are not responding to my statement but addressing a different issue. On
that VT320 what is the ACTUAL character code used on the device?
We are talking about usage of the ISO-8859-x codes for
TRANSMISSION/INTERCHANGE of text over the Internet (in Email and HTML) not
the code used by the computer to talk to the CRT. At home I use a Macintosh
(which uses MacRoman [different codes for the x80-xFF range than
ISO-8859-1] but I have no problems correctly sending/receiving/displaying
Email or HTML so long as it is ID'ed as ISO-8859-1 (or windows-1252 if
Windows glyphs in the x80-x9F codepoint range are used)]. The only reason
for problems is the useless (for interchange) C1 codes. If ISO had not
required them then there would be no difference between the ISO-8859-1
translated codes from MacRoman and Windows-1252 (since MS would have used
the ISO-8859-1 codepoints instead of creating their own).
>- Frank
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:59 EDT