🚀 go-pugleaf

ridder@elvira.enet.dec.com (Hans Ridder) writes:

>In article <1352@faatcrl.UUCP> jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes:
>>  Well, the problem here is that ANSI (VT100 & IBM) "know" only 80*25.  If
>>  there's some sort of bent variation to take advantage of a PAL display, I've
>>  yet to hear about it.

>You're confusing the ANSI *standard* with the VT100 and IBM
>*implementation*.  The ANSI standards (X3.41 and X3.64) make no
>mention of display size.  It is prefectly legal (standards wise) to
>have a screen 80x25, 80x66, 132x66, 132x24, 8x10, or any other size
>you like.  However, most software is too lame to understand that
>terminal screens come in different sizes, so it is best to have a
>screen at least 80x24 in size.

I'm not confusing anything.  Although VT100 and IBM are implementations,
they're standards in their own right due to widespread use.

What I'm refering to is that fact that these two emulations are based on a
video display system that uses a fixed format of 80*25 and is non-standard
with respect to NTSC and PAL.

Taking it a bit further, the CUP and HVP ANSI sequences for cursor position
denote 25 lines when talking about a VT100 and an IBM screen.  A PAL Amiga
allows for more than 25 lines, so this sequence is effectively broke in this
situation.

Now, my question is what sort of work around is there for the case where the
system you connect with can't deal with a VT100 or and IBm that has more than
25 lines?

Is there a _right_ way to handle this sort of situation?

  -jack-