-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

cwr@nexthop.com (Christopher W. Richardson) writes:

> 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.

Apologies for not having brought this up in that last response,
but, assuming that those _are_ the outstanding questions, should
we now move this to tech-userlevel?

Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (NetBSD)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQFCSdS2P65RBOOHTzERAgpeAJ4xyKR6QRmbXCf+2iatr0LMGkPdmQCdEHwd
xMxFrZUzIuXx3SLBU2Hp8Bk=
=EliR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----