reverse text

On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 06:22:26PM +0200, Johnny Billquist
wrote:
>You could perhaps say, however, that Posix is a part of
the ANSI 
>standards. But as I said to begin with, ANSI defines
standards for many 
>things.

well, in that case... is there a place in netbsd OS doc for
things
like terminal escape sequence, or other ansi standards?

or something like standard(5) which could be used as an
index or
bibliography for local man pages and external links. that
way there
would at least be a jump table for information in the local
doc,
when spec of unknown origin is needed? (I did spend/waste
quite a
while with apropos &c searching for color escape
sequences.)

// George


-- 
George Georgalis, systems architect, administrator
<IXOYE><

I think the first thing to realize that is is rather much
outside the 
scope of NetBSD.
Second, the ANSI standard isn't the only way of doing
things. The 
termcap is a fairly good source of information, even if it
isn't complete.
But the termcap file is huge! But I would say that is a good
place to 
start if you want information, unless you want to read
standards that 
might or might not be relevant for you.
Terminals exist outside of NetBSD. It's like if we would
start 
documenting how RS-232 works in NetBSD, just because we
happen to have 
serial ports.

Atleast that is my view on it all. And I might be totally on
my own in 
this. 

	Johnny

George Georgalis skrev:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 06:22:26PM +0200, Johnny
Billquist wrote:
>> You could perhaps say, however, that Posix is a
part of the ANSI 
>> standards. But as I said to begin with, ANSI
defines standards for many 
>> things.
> 
> well, in that case... is there a place in netbsd OS doc
for things
> like terminal escape sequence, or other ansi standards?
> 
> or something like standard(5) which could be used as an
index or
> bibliography for local man pages and external links.
that way there
> would at least be a jump table for information in the
local doc,
> when spec of unknown origin is needed? (I did
spend/waste quite a
> while with apropos &c searching for color escape
sequences.)
> 
> // George
> 
> 

On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 11:28:17PM +0200, Johnny Billquist
wrote:
>I think the first thing to realize that is is rather
much outside the 
>scope of NetBSD.

I see that. but I don't entirely agree. How can programmers
or
users be expected to conform to or utilize a standard when
it is
difficult or impossible to know where to look or to even
know if a
standard exists?

After using netbsd for nearly two years, one thing I
appreciate
over Linux (where I have most of my experience) is adherence
to
best practice (and presumably standards). In Linux it seems
like
somebody reinvented the wheel around every corner.

If a guideline where available as to which standards are
acceptable for netbsd, where and when they are used, where
they
came from, and what they are authoritative for; where they
are
published and where reasonable or possible, even included;
that
would go a long ways to getting everyone on the same
page--I'm
not suggesting a finite set of standards should be used or
people
should be discouraged from making up their own, rather the
established standards could be more visible.

>Second, the ANSI standard isn't the only way of doing
things.

I understand that, what I'm describing is a means by which
developers and users can use to make an educated decision on
which standard is appropriate (vs not knowing if a standard
was
available at all).

>The 
>termcap is a fairly good source of information, even if
it isn't complete.
>But the termcap file is huge! But I would say that is a
good place to 
>start if you want information, unless you want to read
standards that 
>might or might not be relevant for you.

I'm thinking more about regulated deployment than my
immediate
needs.  A STANDARDS section of man pages to describe which
standard(s) the author used (and where to find them); along
with a
standards(5) page to summarize the most common choices
available.

>Terminals exist outside of NetBSD. It's like if we would
start 
>documenting how RS-232 works in NetBSD, just because we
happen to have 
>serial ports.

I appreciate netbsd is not authoritative for most of the
standards
it is built on, but if a path for discovery was begun, well
it
would be a lot easier to make serial devices or drivers.

Your description of POSIX, ANSI, ISO relationships was
informative, Johnny.  Disclosure of relevant standards, who
is
authoritative over them and their hierarchy would be a
valuable
addition to netbsd, in my personal opinion. 

// George


-- 
George Georgalis, systems architect, administrator
<IXOYE><

But with terminals, you can't really say which standards are
acceptable 
to NetBSD.
It's probably not even relevant. If someone comes with a
certain 
terminal, that's what he got to play with, no matter what
standard (or 
none) that the specific terminal happens to adhere to. And
looking at a 
manual page on possible terminal standards will either point
him to 
something that is (probably) irrelevant to him, or is so
extensive that 
it covers all that the termcap library do, which means it
will be larger 
than huge.

 From a NetBSD point of view, the only interesting thing is
if we can 
support it or not. Preferrably we can. No matter what that
terminal 
speaks. And the way we do that is via the termcap library,
which covers 
exactly how each different terminal do things, or what exact

capabilities a specific terminal have.

That's the point I'm making. If we choose to say that ANSI
is the 
standard we follow, does that mean that we should stop
handling all 
other terminal models? Because we can't change those
terminals to start 
being ANSI. And if someone wants to know how to get a
specific effect on 
the terminal that he happens to have, ANSI might just be
totally useless 
to him, just as it might be just what he was looking for.

(Och, and if termcap really is termlib these days, please
substitute as 
approriate. I don't really follow that development.)

I'll be quiet now. I promise. 

	Johnny

George Georgalis wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 11:28:17PM +0200, Johnny
Billquist wrote:
> 
>>I think the first thing to realize that is is rather
much outside the 
>>scope of NetBSD.
> 
> 
> I see that. but I don't entirely agree. How can
programmers or
> users be expected to conform to or utilize a standard
when it is
> difficult or impossible to know where to look or to
even know if a
> standard exists?
> 
> After using netbsd for nearly two years, one thing I
appreciate
> over Linux (where I have most of my experience) is
adherence to
> best practice (and presumably standards). In Linux it
seems like
> somebody reinvented the wheel around every corner.
> 
> If a guideline where available as to which standards
are
> acceptable for netbsd, where and when they are used,
where they
> came from, and what they are authoritative for; where
they are
> published and where reasonable or possible, even
included; that
> would go a long ways to getting everyone on the same
page--I'm
> not suggesting a finite set of standards should be used
or people
> should be discouraged from making up their own, rather
the
> established standards could be more visible.
> 
> 
>>Second, the ANSI standard isn't the only way of
doing things.
> 
> 
> I understand that, what I'm describing is a means by
which
> developers and users can use to make an educated
decision on
> which standard is appropriate (vs not knowing if a
standard was
> available at all).
> 
> 
>>The 
>>termcap is a fairly good source of information, even
if it isn't complete.
>>But the termcap file is huge! But I would say that
is a good place to 
>>start if you want information, unless you want to
read standards that 
>>might or might not be relevant for you.
> 
> 
> I'm thinking more about regulated deployment than my
immediate
> needs.  A STANDARDS section of man pages to describe
which
> standard(s) the author used (and where to find them);
along with a
> standards(5) page to summarize the most common choices
available.
> 
> 
>>Terminals exist outside of NetBSD. It's like if we
would start 
>>documenting how RS-232 works in NetBSD, just because
we happen to have 
>>serial ports.
> 
> 
> I appreciate netbsd is not authoritative for most of
the standards
> it is built on, but if a path for discovery was begun,
well it
> would be a lot easier to make serial devices or
drivers.
> 
> Your description of POSIX, ANSI, ISO relationships was
> informative, Johnny.  Disclosure of relevant standards,
who is
> authoritative over them and their hierarchy would be a
valuable
> addition to netbsd, in my personal opinion. 
> 
> // George
> 
>