On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 05:08:32PM -0800, Bradley Bell wrote: > isn't xterm the 'de facto' standard? it would seem to me that any options > xterm understands ought to be supported by x-terminal-emulator. If > a certain terminal emulater is not xterm compatible, it would be trivial to > provide an 'xterm compatibility wrapper', and have x-terminal-emulator point > to that.
Nononono. I love xterm to death, but requiring support for its many, many options is the death of a thousand cuts. Most other terminal emulators don't fool with the Tektronix 4014 emulation, for instance. Try "man xterm" sometime and feel your head reel as the bajillions of options scroll by. I think requiring a *small* compatibility subset is the way to go. There's not all that many things a terminal emulator needs to be able to configurably from the command line to satisfy the requirements of a program (as opposed to a user) that calls it: 1) accept a geometry specification 2) accept a title 3) exec a specified command Maybe, *maybe* we should require -ls (login shell) support, but even that is pushing it, I think. As much as I love xterm, I don't think it's fair to require that every other X terminal emulator be just like it. -- G. Branden Robinson | One man's theology is another man's Debian GNU/Linux | belly laugh. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Heinlein http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |
pgplXFtJnLFDh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
