Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!a.gp.cs.cmu.edu!koopman
From: koopman@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Philip Koopman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Alternative keyboards
Summary: QWERTY standards(?)
Message-ID: <10304@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 23 Aug 90 11:09:48 GMT
References: <9008201426.AA05359@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 19

In article <9008201426.AA05359@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM (Mitch Bradley) writes:
> The benefits of standardization are immense.  Even though QWERTY is a
> stupid layout, at least it is consistently applied across the majority
> of keyboards.  Would that other keys (enter, delete, backspace,
> punctuation) were in the same locations on all keyboards!  But no,
> every keyboard designer thinks they have a better idea, and the net
> result is a million different layouts for the "extra" characters.

So Mitch, does this mean that the "other" keys are undefined, or
implementation specific, or (I suspect) some of each?
Which wordset would each key go into?

(Sorry, I couldn't resist).

  Phil Koopman                koopman@greyhound.ece.cmu.edu   Arpanet
  2525A Wexford Run Rd.
  Wexford, PA  15090
Senior scientist at Harris Semiconductor, and adjunct professor at CMU.
I don't speak for them, and they don't speak for me.