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
optimizations
--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
"rgb:aa/aa/aa".
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
them.
Of course, finding a utf-8 capable xterm replacement is the challenge here ;)
pgpYfEGzMHMq4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers