Re: sensible-x-terminal and x-terminal-emulator
From: branden@debian.org
Subject: Re: sensible-x-terminal and x-terminal-emulator
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 22:38:01 -0500
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2000 at 08:07:11AM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> > Well, to request sensible-x-terminal-emulator does not mean
> > furious forking of terminal emulators, IMHO.
>
> No, but the latter is encouraged by the former.
>
> > The request of sensible-x-terminal-emulator might be the result of
> > variety of terminal emulators but definitely not the cause of forking
> > of terminal emulators.
>
> I think it is a feedback loop.
Please note at least that there are already variety of terminal
emulators although there is not yet sensible-x-terminal-emulator.
> > Furthermore I do not think even if there is one terminal emulator,
> > xterm for example, which can handle every kind of multi-byte characters
> > well enough it become the unique terminal emulator in Debian.
> >
> > There should be people who wants more small and light terminal emulator
> > and so on.
>
> That issue is utterly orthogonal. This "sensible-x-terminal-emulator" idea
> is being forwarded due to the lack of a standard X terminal that handles
> most locales well. If more than one terminal emulator did so, there would
> be no need for "sensible-x-terminal-emulator" at all, since we could use
> the alternatives mechanism to score such programs more highly than their
> stripped down or locale-specific counterparts.
Well, your reasoning above is based on your assumption that
"If more than one terminal emulator did so" but we are talking
about the present Debian and not about Debian in the long time
future ;-)
Furthermore, even if we admit your assumption I do not
agree your conclusion that the alternatives mechanism
is sufficient. It provides only system default terminal
emulators so I think there remain some cases where a bit more
flexible mechanism like sensible-x-terminal-emulator is necessary.
> I still wonder if this issue can't be better resolved by promoting the
> alternatives priority of locale-specific xterm-type-programs like hanterm
> and then including them in a task package corresponding to that locale.
>
> Thus hanterm might have priority 50 while xterm has only priority 20. But
> hanterm would be depended upon by, for instance, task-chinese-t[1], which
> Americans and Europeans likely would not install.
For example I installed not only kterm, krxvt for Japanese
but also hanterm for Hangul to test message catalogue of lynx
then alternatives automatically select(s) hanterm but this is
not appropriate for me.
There could be many, many cases where alternatives is (are?)
not sufficient, IMHO.
Best Regards, 2000.7.19
--
Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>
Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.
Reply to: