Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1a 12/4/83; site rlgvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!guy
From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: net.info-terms,net.wanted
Subject: Re: VT100 Compatible Terminals
Message-ID: <1653@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-Feb-84 21:39:56 EST
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.1653
Posted: Fri Feb  3 21:39:56 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 9-Feb-84 02:54:59 EST
References: <918@cwruecmp.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 26

> 	We are looking to get a couple of VT100 compatible terminals...
> These terminals require the following characteristics:

	.
	.
	.
	*) no brain damage (i.e. 'magic cookies')

The ANSI X3.64 standard, which the VT100 adheres to, in effect says that
magic cookies do not exist; any terminal with magic cookies can't be X3.64
compatible.  (Furthermore, they can't even put the magic cookie in the
display memory and not show it on the screen; they *must* implement the
screen image so that it appears to the program talking to the terminal as
if each screen position had a character and an attribute set, and that any
character put on the screen gets the "current" attributes which are set by
the SGR sequence.)  As such, if the TeleVideo 970 has magic cookies, it's
blatantly not VT100 compatible and not even X3.64 compatible, and they
would probably not sell any after they were found out.  I suspect you're
safe if they claim VT100 compatiblility - however, the C. Itoh CIT-101 has
a non-VT100 compatible printer port, which they had *no excuse* doing since
there is a spec for an auxiliary output port in X3.64.  First Datamedia used
it, *then* DEC put a printer port on the VT100 - but both implementations
were compatible because they were both based on X3.64.

	Guy Harris
	{seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy