-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I was just hoping for some name for the set used. I don't believe you got some of them wrong, just that the set isn't exactly "standard" (whatever that is) and I couldn't figure out why the :o digraph in vim didn't get what I expected. If I come across any better list I will let you know, but a lot of it has to do with the font used and so I suppose even now there are a variety of ways to interpret 127-255. Perhaps when utf8 is the *only* standard speakup should be updated, but until I know more of the specs I am not going to be demanding any changes. Well thanks for the response and now I will get back to my weekend ritual of reading textbooks, manuals, and rants... er um mailing lists. *chuckle* On 10/19/03 11:25 AM -0400, Kirk Reiser wrote: > Hi Tom: I'd like to say I used something very scientific when > defining the character descriptions but that would be a lie. I asked > here on the list a few years back if anyone had a list of the > character names for the extended ascii set. Two people sent me lists > Geoff Shang and Mike Gorse. Those lists sat around for quite awhile > before I got around to building them into speakup and truthfully I > don't remember which list I used, maybe both. So it is very possible > that I actually got it wrong. I think it is the extended pc character > set as built into the computer. If you find mistakes and there may be > some let me know and we'll change them. I hadn't noticed any wrong > ones up until now but I can't say I've ever been diligent about > testing them either. > > Kirk - -- Unix is a user friendly operating system. It just picks its friends more carefully than others. Thomas Stivers e-mail: stivers_t at tomass.dyndns.org gpg: 45CBBABD -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/krAD5JK61UXLur0RAp6KAJ0UavDem0IKy48rv/9Oo3YO8rGoIACdFHXv mc3cQRGvpLB4YXsXNEsf/1w= =hIKs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
