[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: display-types

At 03:40 PM 3/29/97 EST, Ron Rivest wrote:
>If you prefer the [x] y style, carl, let's leave it that way, then.  

I'd like to hear from others on the list before considering the issue done,
but that's my preference as I said before.

>To answer your question: no, the display-type itself should not have
>a display-type.  If you have something like:
>	[xx] yy
>then you are either displaying this in ASCII (in which case xx is just
>printed out as above), or else you are honoring display-types, in which case
>the [xx] won't be displayed at all.

I was thinking of the Chinese programmer who defines some new string type.  He 
might want to name his byte string in his character set.  For example, he
might consider it a friendly act on our part if we were to declare that the
[xx] byte string is itself unicode rather than forced to be ASCII.  Of course,
it's far easier on those of us with ASCII-only tools if [xx] is ASCII.

 - Carl

|Carl M. Ellison  cme@cybercash.com   http://www.clark.net/pub/cme |
|CyberCash, Inc.                      http://www.cybercash.com/    |
|207 Grindall Street   PGP 2.6.2: 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 |
|Baltimore MD 21230-4103  T:(410) 727-4288  F:(410)727-4293        |

Follow-Ups: References: