Browse Prior Art Database

Response to NWG/RFC 110 (RFC0135)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000007192D
Original Publication Date: 1971-Apr-29
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2002-Mar-05
Document File: 4 page(s) / 6K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

W. Hathaway: AUTHOR

Abstract

I would like to propose the following conventions to replace the ones proposed in RFC #110. The original conventions suffer from lack of consideration of the correspondence 2741 and what I feel are inconsistencies and considerable difficulty of use. (The 2741 terminal with correspondence keyboard does not have all of the standard characters, notably:

This text was extracted from an ASCII text file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 50% of the total text.

Network Working Group                                        W. Hathaway

Request for Comments: 135                                           AMES

NIC: 6712                                                  29 April 1971

Updates: 110

                        Response to NWG/RFC #110

   (Conventions for Using an IBM 2741 Terminal as a User Console for

                    Access to Network Server Hosts)

   I would like to propose the following conventions to replace the ones

   proposed in RFC #110.  The original conventions suffer from lack of

   consideration of the correspondence 2741 and what I feel are

   inconsistencies and considerable difficulty of use.  (The 2741

   terminal with correspondence keyboard does not have all of the

   standard characters, notably:

      less than       <

      greater than    >

      logical not    [1]

      vertical bar    |

   Thus we must not use any of these characters in our conventions if we

   wish to support the correspondence 2741.)

   The dedication of certain characters to special functions involves a

   trade-off: the convenience of having the function as a single key

   versus the inconvenience of having to use two keys to enter the

   character as data.  I believe that only two of the special functions

   listed in RFC #110 justify the dedication of a key: the "character

   escape" function and the "character delete" function.  For the

   "character escape" function I recommend the cent sign [2], as this

   character is on both the regular and correspondence 2741 terminals

   and is not in the ASCII character set.  For the "character delete"

   function I recommend the backspace key for obvious reasons.  While

   there is some need to be able to enter the character "backspace" (as

   for underscoring output etc.,) I feel that the trade-off mentioned

   above clearly indicates a single key "character delete" would be much

   more valuable than a single key "backspace" and a two key "character

   delete."

   For the other special functions I recommend two key combinations,

   consisting of "character escape" [2] and a key to define the

   function.  These are summarized below:

Hathaway                                                        [Page 1]

RFC 135                 Response to NWG/RFC #110           29 April 1971

      character escape        [2]

      character delete        backspace

      system delete           [2]$

      line delete             [2]# or [2]#NL

      logical line end        [2];

      line continuation       [2]NL

      ASCII control           [2]@

   The option in "line delete" is to allow the user to enter a new line

   (NL) immediately after the "line delete" to line up margins without

   entering a null line; to enter a null line after a "line delete"

   would require two NL characters.

   The two new functions defined above, "line continuation...