Re: fact check

[Thomas Dickey]

On Sat, Dec 07, 2019 at 09:45:41PM -0500, Patrick wrote:
> Hi Everyone
> 
> Could you check my logic. ECMA-48 is a standard that describes how terminals
> should behave when various control sequence strings are sent right? Is it a
> fair statement that the various curses implementations are just abstraction
> layers over ECMA-48 ?

not really.  ECMA-48 doesn't have anything to do with function-keys or
cursor-keys (nothing to do with the keyboard).  According to a script
that I wrote, about half of the terminal descriptions have cursor-keys
that look like ANSI cursor-movement.  I don't have data showing the
fraction using ECMA-48 controls (some work is needed), but suspect that
it's about half, too.

I noticed recently (in July) that the OSF1 manual page said that the
capability names are based on ANSI X3.64 (that's before ECMA-48), and
was thinking that it might be nice to add a paragraph and lists to show
which are, and which aren't.  Since none of the "k" keyboard capabilities
are in ECMA-48, I'd put those in a third list.

Offhand, I'd probably do that by adding a column to Caps and then
generating the lists.

(my to-do list is long...)

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey <address@hidden>
https://invisible-island.net
ftp://ftp.invisible-island.net

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature