Subject: Re: -key "introduction"
To: Johnny Billquist <bqt@Update.UU.SE>
From: Christopher W. Richardson <>
List: netbsd-users
Date: 03/29/2005 17:15:59
Hash: SHA1

Johnny Billquist <bqt@Update.UU.SE> writes:

> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 01:11:44PM -0600, Richard Rauch wrote:
>> > Well, if there are no misunderstandings, then, it seems that this is
>> > fixed in -current.
>> To avoid any further misunderstanings:
> Ditto. :-)
>> Do you have "proper Delete" key (when cursor "eats" the
>> following characters, not moving itself from its position) in
>> the console (text) mode? In the command line of the shell, in
>> the applications too - never mind (at the moment) the XTerm
>> window?
> That is not how I would define "proper Delete". And therein
> lies the problem.

Well, actually, the more I look at this (though I completely
agree with you about "proper Delete") I'm not sure that is the
"problem".  As near as I can now tell, the "problem" is that
wsksymdef.h does not define 0x01-0x07, and Zbigniew would like to
be able to assign 0x04 to a key.  I don't think any of us have an
issue with him assigning whatever he wants to whatever keys he
wants on his own system.  I guess the remaining questions are:

	1) Do we have a good reason for not having included ASCII
           (ISO Latin1) NUL, SOH, STX, ETX, EOT (this is the one
           he's after), ENQ, ACK, and BEL in our ASCII (ISO
           Latin1) KeySym declaration; and,

        2) If the answer to 1 is "no", do we want to include
           any/all of those in an upcomming release.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (NetBSD)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <>