[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C-= ?
From: |
Emanuel Berg |
Subject: |
Re: C-= ? |
Date: |
Mon, 20 Jul 2015 01:14:14 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux) |
Yuri Khan <yuri.v.khan@gmail.com> writes:
> If you are going to recommend people to hijack
> arbitrary Unicode characters for extended keycodes,
> at least tell them to pick codes from the
> Private Use Area (U+E000 up to and including
> U+F8FF). It is the Unicode equivalent of RFC 1918 IP
> addresses — guaranteed to never have an
> official meaning.
Ha ha, "hijack arbitrary Unicode characters" -
oh, Yuri, you old flatterer!
No, I think I'll do even better, I'll simply include
that whole paragraph in the tutorial, if you
don't mind!
> Better yet, design a complete, unambiguous,
> international-friendly and backward-compatible
> keycode system and lobby for its support
> out-of-the-box in the Linux tty and Xterm.
You forget that I am not in favor of
"international-friendly" stuff in the
computer-computer world, where it should be 512 chars
max and Anglo-American only.
Otherwise I would have done it instantly :)
--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
- C-= ?, Sharon Kimble, 2015/07/18
- Re: C-= ?, Dmitry Gutov, 2015/07/18
- Re: C-= ?, Emanuel Berg, 2015/07/18
- Re: C-= ?, Ian Zimmerman, 2015/07/18
- Re: C-= ?, Emanuel Berg, 2015/07/19
- Re: C-= ?, Yuri Khan, 2015/07/19
- Re: C-= ?,
Emanuel Berg <=
- Message not available
- Re: C-= ?, Rusi, 2015/07/19
Re: C-= ?, Vaidheeswaran C, 2015/07/18