Re: [dev] [sent] "Terminal doesn't support images" isn't quite true

From: Pickfire <>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:14:39 +0800

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:35:24PM +0100, Teodoro Santoni wrote:
>2015-11-17 4:26 GMT+01:00, Pickfire <>:
>> Hi, I had found these in sent example:
>> also:
>> terminal presentations
>> don't support images…
>> In My Humble Opinion, terminal indeed can display images, look at w3m
>> although it is badly designed.
>> I think that it can be something such as "terminal has bad support for
>> images" instead of »terminal don't support images«
>terminal emulators may display colorful characters resembling pixels
>in the image, depending on each terminal's color support.
>What displays the image in w3m case is an external X client (although
>called by w3m) which puts the bits onto the {xterm,libvte
>terminal,qterminal} and redraws the image somewhere else every time
>you scroll the page.
>In terminology case [0], the program has builtin commands for dealing
>with other files than plain text or text with vt100 control codes,
>thus draws images or pdf pages in the terminal window. It does more
>than just emulating a terminal.

Thanks, I think it was a mistake.

< Do what you like, like what you do. >
        \   ^__^
         \  (oo)\_______
            (__)\       )\/\
                ||----w |
                ||     ||
Received on Wed Nov 18 2015 - 02:14:39 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Nov 18 2015 - 02:24:08 CET