On Tue, Apr 23, 2013, at 10:30, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> random832_AT_fastmail.us dixit:
>
> >Wait a minute... what exactly do you _expect_ meta to do? Using (for
> >example) meta-a to type 0xE1 "a with acute" is _not_, in fact, the
> >expected or intended behavior; it is a bug. And I don't think it will
>
> No, it is the intended behaviour.
> http://fsinfo.noone.org/~abe/typing-8bit.html
The fact that someone discovered it, _thought_ it was intended, and
showed other people how to do it does not mean that it actually was
intended.
> >even work with UTF-8 applications, and st is an exclusively UTF-8
> >terminal.
>
> XTerm handles that transparently: when in UTF-8 mode, Meta-d
> is still CHR$(ASC("d")+128) = "ä", just U+00E4 instead of a
> raw '\xE4' octet.
If this were an intended feature why would it elevate latin-1 over other
unicode characters? This only proves my point.
> This is *extremely* useful – especially as it leads people
> away from national keyboard layouts towards QWERTY while
> retainig the ability to write business eMails, which require
> correct spelling.
And what the heck is wrong with national keyboard layouts that it's
"useful" to "lead people away from" them?
Received on Tue Apr 23 2013 - 16:42:48 CEST