From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Jan 02 2001 - 10:34:45 CST
In <yl7l4fnizx.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
>Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:
>> I think the term is well defined for those character sets that have them.
>> If a particular CCS provides for the use of ESC as a means to introduce
>> extra glyphs, then I would expect articles written according to that CCS
>> to follow its conventions.
>> Generally speaking, control characters are defined to "control" things
>> other than the transmitted text (such as movements of the carriage on an
>> ASR 33, or features of the transmission medium like EOR).
>That sounds like an awful lot of handwaving for a standard.
Sure, but that was just a comment to this list, not a text intended for
inclusion. My proposed text was in another message, and is hardly any
longer than the present text.
>Or even better, why don't we bail completely and pass off to MIME, which
>already specifies all of this in adequate detail, adding a clarification
>about form feed and maybe backspace?
Well I have been thinking that all this mention of CCSs and the like is a
bit pointless. IETF were trying to push that terminology at one time, but
in our case the CCS is simply whatever the Content-type says it is (or
UTF-8 for the headers). So shall I try and remove that terminology>
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Voice/Fax: +44 161 436 6131 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5