Re: terminal without telnet

---In [email protected], <gerhardp@...> wrote :
 
 > This is disputable? I interpret ANSI as stipulating a terminal that
 > responds to control sequences containing & and [, and using only 
 > printable characters for the data in these. This would seem to any 
 > terminal character set, not just ASCII.
 

 ANSI refers to published standards, these are pesky things that aren't
 always amenable to one's interpretation.
 

 In this case a relevant spec appears to be ECMA-35
 http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-035.pdf http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-035.pdf
 

 The specs are quite clear, albeit complex.  There are definitely
 provisions in the spec for 8-bit codes as opposed to 7-bit codes;
 See for example Fig. 5 on page 16.  One glance at that image 
 though should be enough to dispel any question that EBCDIC
 could fit into its overall framework...

 

 Specifically, section 11 of that spec "Transformation between 

 8-bit and 7-bit codes" contains instructions such as this:

 "Within a CC-data-element any 7-bit combination has an equivalent 8-bit form comprising b7 to b1 of the 7-bitform, together with a b8 of ZERO"
 

 and this:
 "Within a CC-data-element any 8-bit combination in which b8 is ZERO has an equivalent 7-bit form comprising b7to b1 of the 8-bit form."
 
 So I say again, "EBCDIC ANSI" [sic] is an oxymoron and is not
even maybe spec-compliant...
 

 Max