On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 15:45:18 +0200, Juergen Weigert <jw@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> But yes, it makes sense to install the database, even if none of the
> applications that provide a terminal type and none of the applications
> that make use of a terminal type is installed.
> 
> My argument still holds: If the database entry is onwed by one of the 
> using or poviding party, then this owner is defintly the one who
> provides. Ownership here is in the sense of "being the authoritive
> source, having the right to modify". 

Gregg's point AIUI is that xterm has to adhere to a standard if it's going
to be useful outside the workstation.  If I fire up an xterm and use tip
to dial a modem on some random non-NetBSD machine, that serial connection
doesn't change xterm's cursor addressing characteristics.  I have to be
able to define my terminal to that host if I want to use so much as vi,
referencing an entry in the host's termcap.  There's no reason to assume
the host has any knowledge of any nonstandard behavior my xterm might
exhibit. [*] 

Starting with that assumption -- that xterm must rely on a standard larger
than itself -- he asserts the termcap entry should be provided by the
standard bearer.  And be part of the base OS, I think.  

I don't know if that's practical, but it seems reasonable to me, working
from first principles.  

Regards, 

--jkl

*   It would be cool though, if I could log in and say, "Hi this is me and
this is my termcap entry.  Yeah, I know you've got one, but I'd really
rather we use mine, thanks.  I don't know where yours has been, you know."