> Anyway, I havn't been able to totally figure out the character set
> stuff.  I understand that GL is for character 20h to 7fh, and GR is
> for a0h to ffh.  I've been able to swap theese around to any of the
> predefined character sets, but what about the characters in the C1
> range (80h-9fh), and how can I change the "character set".

This looks a whole lot like the X3.41/X3.64 character set stuff, in
which case bytes in the C1 range simply do not correspond to
character-set codepoints; they are controls, like the 0x00-0x1f range.
(The GL/GR stuff is also a bit more complicated; character sets can be
94-character (0x21-0x7e or 0xa1-0xfe) or 96-character (0x20-0x7f or
0xa0-0xff), but there is no way to put a 96-character set into G0.
There are rules about what happens when you try to print a character
that doesn't exist, but I don't remember the details.)

I'll be glad to go into more detail by private mail if anyone is
interested.

As for pcvt in particular, like coaxing it into using IBM CP850, or
persuading it to treat the 0x80-0x9f range as printable, I can't help
you there...though you have the source, so you should be able to hack
whatever you want into place.

> could someone point me to the official VT220 standard information

As far as I know there is none.  Look up ANSI X3.41 and X3.64 for most
of it, but all the VTxxx line implement only part of X3.* and have
extensions not present in the standards; as far as I know these are
documented nowhere but in the relevant terminal manuals.  (I went
through this when writing mterm, even managing to chase down paper
copies of X3.41 and X3.64, implementing as much of them as looked
practical, and then picking up a real VT-xxx manual (VT-320, I think)
and implementing as much of _that_ as looked practical.

> I'd like to touch up (maybe totally rewrite) PCVT to make it more
> practical.

It sounds as though your idea of "practical" is "like MS-DOS".  If I
used the i386 port, I would object to moving pcvt closer to messy-doss
and away from real internationalization standards like ISO 8859.  I
wouldn't object to providing a mode that behaved more like a DOS
console, provided it were optional and went away totally in the absence
of some kernel build option.

> How do others feel about it?  I guess "real" UNIX people are just
> happy not to be using punch cards...

I'm not sure what you mean here.  It sounds insulting somehow, as if
UNIX were so stuck in the dark ages it counts itself lucky to have
lower case or something.  I sure don't feel that way; I use 8859-1
routinely and will probably go to Unicode or 10646 or something
covering a bit more than just Western Europe at some point.

					der Mouse

			       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
		     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B