[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] [PATCH] Make xterm usage configurable

From: Valdis . Kletnieks
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] [PATCH] Make xterm usage configurable
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:47:22 -0400

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:04:50 PDT, Eric Gillespie said:
> The default behavior of throwing new xterms at me out of nowhere
> is horribly annoying.

A few minor comments:

> +    echo "mhshow-charset-iso-8859-1: $PGM -fn 
> '-*-*-medium-r-normal-*-*-120-*-*-c-*-iso8859-*' -e %s" >> $TMP

This is making the assumption that $PGM interprets '-fn' as 'font name'.
This could come as a surprise to some xterm replacements:

% Eterm --help | grep font
      --bold-font                   (str)  bold text font
 -F   --font                        (str)  normal text font
      --default-font-index          (int)  set the index of the default font
      --font1                       (str)  font 1
      --font2                       (str)  font 2
      --font3                       (str)  font 3
      --font4                       (str)  font 4
      --proportional                (bool) toggle proportional font 
      --font-fx                     (str)  specify font effects for the 
terminal fonts
 -M   --mfont                       (str)  normal text multichar font
      --mfont1                      (str)  multichar font 1
      --mfont2                      (str)  multichar font 2
      --mfont3                      (str)  multichar font 3
      --mfont4                      (str)  multichar font 4
      --big-font-key                (str)  keysym for font size increase
      --small-font-key              (str)  keysym for font size decrease

% Eterm -fn fixed
Eterm:  Warning:  Unable to resolve "n" as a color name.  Falling back on 

I haven't bothered checking rxvt or the Gnome terminal widget...

A more generic comment:

Is it really best to hard-code in 8859-1?  I just checked the last 8,000 or
so e-mails I received, and it's 5,312 us-ascii, 2100 8859-1, and 919 utf-8.
I suspect that the vast majority of the 8859-1-tagged mails are in fact
perfectly fine us-ascii, but the MUA designer has nailed the charset to
8859-1 and fails to downgrade to us-ascii when the mail is actually comprised
entirely of ascii characters.  I have not noted any similar tendency in
the mails tagged utf-8 - those in fact usually have non-ascii characters in

Of course, finding a utf-8 capable xterm replacement is the challenge here ;)

Attachment: pgpgdllRcec01.pgp
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]