Frank da Cruz wrote on 1998-10-09 21:25 UTC:
> Markus Kuhn <Markus.Kuhn@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > I am sceptical
> > however, whether all the many control symbols really need to have a place
> > in the BMP. I think that debugging tools can quite easily provide them
> > using some other replacement notation, that might or might not bypass the
> > usual font mechanisms.
> Indeed they can, but then will such debugging tools be interoperable
> with other applications? I think it is a worthy goal to be able to paste
> terminal screens -- even when they contain debugging information -- into
> other applications. For example, for publication purposes, e.g. by people
> who write networking and data communications textbooks, manuals, and
> "for dummies" books. I think there is a nontrivial market there :-)
Again, I think the interoperability by bitmap capture of the GUI window
should be fully adequate for this application. It is even better, as the
bitmap preserves exactly the glyph shapes in the documentation and will
not cause any potentially confusing unification differences in the
printed material.
Manuals for terminal emulators are a fairly small market segment that is
better covered better by the graphics inclusion mechanisms of word
processor software that also have to take care of coorporate logos, and
other highly specialized non-Unicode symbols.
Markus
-- Markus G. Kuhn, Security Group, Computer Lab, Cambridge University, UK email: mkuhn at acm.org, home page: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:42 EDT