Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site phri.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!phri!roy From: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) Newsgroups: net.internat Subject: Re: What do we REALLY want? Message-ID: <517@phri.UUCP> Date: Thu, 10-Oct-85 16:32:22 EDT Article-I.D.: phri.517 Posted: Thu Oct 10 16:32:22 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 14-Oct-85 06:25:00 EDT References: <723@inset.UUCP> <31711@lanl.ARPA> Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY) Lines: 22 Referring to the VT-220: > I'm sure that the designer of this keyboard (and all the others) > thought that he or she had good reasons for using this layout. I > happen to disagree. > > Charlie Sorsby, {cmcl2,ihnp4}!lanl!crs I agree with Charlie. After an infinite variety of keyboard layouts by various manufacturers, DEC had finally come up with a de-facto standard with the VT-100 layout (also on the LA-120's, etc.) So why change it? The return key is off in right field somewhere, the business with the "<>,." keys looses badly, and if you are running emacs, you have to go hunting for the escape key. But then, what does this have to do with internationalization? -- Roy Smith System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016