[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: