On Sat, 02 May 2015 18:56:24 -0400 (EDT), Thomas Dickey wrote: > > The request said > > It is also very useful for modern > versions of PuTTY, which emulate a modern 256-color xterm but > do not support alternate character sets in utf-8 mode. > > and I pointed out that it would only lead to more bug reports.
I disagree. I don't think it will lead to more bug reports. But never mind that. Forget about PuTTY. Forget I ever mentioned it. I wish now that I hadn't. I only mentioned it because I thought it would be an additional selling point, but I was clearly wrong about that. All mentioning it has done is to provide a distraction from the main topic. So forget about it. I'll never mention it again, and I'm sorry I mentioned it the first time. Now, let's look at this purely from an xterm point of view. There is already an xterm-utf8 terminal definition. All I'm asking for is an xterm-256color-utf8 terminal definition to go with the existing xterm-256color terminal definition, just as there is an existing xterm-utf8 terminal definition to go with the xterm terminal definition. All I'm asking for is consistency for xterm users. -- .''`. Stephen Powell <zlinux...@wowway.com> : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
