On Sunday, April 28, 2013 11:30:01 AM UTC-4, Chris Davies wrote: > berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: > > > I know that most terminal emulators support most VT100 escape > > sequences, which are based on ecma-48 > > > > I'd extend that to suggest that most terminal emulators support the > majority of VT220 sequences, not just the VT100 subset.
unlikely - I dealt with that a few years ago: http://invisible-island.net/xterm/xterm.faq.html#compare_versions > > > > but as far as I know, they are > > not able to support the full standard. By example, they only support 7 > > bit sequences, and so CSI is 0x1B5B only, were ecma-48 says it can be > > 0x9B too. > > I don't know about this, although a quick test does appear to suggest > that lxterm does not support \x9b as an alternative to \x1b\5b. hmm - lxterm would be vte, which of course does not support 8-bit controls. > The PuTTY FAQ seems to claim that it's either implemented everything > or else documented what it hasn't implemented. This might be a good > starting point. What I recall of the PuTTY FAQ (a specific pointer would help) is that it's roughly comparable to rxvt - implements about 80% of VT100, but is not a VT100 emulator due to differences in the way it does line-wrapping (apparently because at the outset its developers were attempting to match the SCO console). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/317dbada-3dc8-45bf-86cf-a9665c588...@googlegroups.com
