🚀 go-pugleaf

> >...The reason for '. .' and ', ,' was that
> >you still wanted to be able to type those in "shift lock" mode, but since
> >"caps lock" on a terminal only shifts the alphabetic keys, the reason for
> >a '. .' and ', ,' go away.  Some people just don't know how to think!
> 
> Nope.  On a VT220, the user can select CAPS-LOCK or SHIFT-LOCK in the
> setup mode, depending on his/her preference.

I hadn't known this about the VT220, but it certainly diminishes any slight
respect I might have offered it.  The availability of SHIFT-LOCK doesn't do
anything to bolster the sensibility of '. .' and ', ,' keys; it just makes
the VT220 look sillier.

SHIFT-LOCK is archaic and arcane.  It made sense on a typewriter where
shifting moved the key basket (is that the term?) and shift-lock just locked
it into place--but only because that was the cheap thing to do.  Being able
to use shift-lock to type VT@@) or MC^*)@) or IBM#&) just isn't useful, and
carrying mechanical-typewriter arcana into an electronic device is insane
(or at least inane).  The change from SHIFT-LOCK to CAPS-LOCK was a logical
change, finally made possible by changing technology, and why DEC would
offer a throwback is beyond me...but then, I'm not a marketeer.

I think Mark has charted a pretty good course through the murky waters of
what-can-we-change-vs-what-must-be-familiar.

You could make the same argument I made above for moving to a Dvorak
keyboard.  Fine.  Changing from qwerty to Dvorak is a much bigger change.
I would like to see a qwerty keyboard with the rest of the keys laid out in
a consistent and sensible fashion.  I would also like to see a Dvorak
layout with the same rules applied to the rest of the keyboard.  (And,
paying at least tardy lip service to the name of the newsgroup, I would
like to see more about the implications of international keyboards in this
issue.)
-- 
Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
   ...Relax...don't worry...have a homebrew.