Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!stanford.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!hsdndev!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: termcap str + params -> control seq. How?
Message-ID: <3409:Apr1005:36:0491@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 10 Apr 91 05:36:04 GMT
References: <1931@ahds.UUCP> <4797@cernvax.cern.ch> <7068@auspex.auspex.com>
Organization: IR
Lines: 16

In article <7068@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes:
> Unfortunately, given that there's no single place that specifies what
> the complete set of valid capabilities (at least for any given OS
> release) are, it's easy for people to add them, ignorant of the fact
> that some programs might accept some *other* name for the same
> capability.  The fact that every Tom, Dick, and Harriet can "add" new
> capabilities to "termcap" isn't an unmixed blessing....

Agreed. The natural solution is to have a special namespace for
experimental or nonstandard capabilities. If it weren't for the
two-character format I'd suggest names starting with X as free.

With such a convention, termcap would resume its rightful place above
terminfo in the hearts and minds of UNIX programmers. [1/2 :-)]

---Dan