Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sjuvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!floyd!whuxle!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!akgua!psuvax1!burdvax!sjuvax!jss
From: jss@sjuvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.emacs
Subject: Re: 5420 follies - sure this thing is vt100-compatible!!!
Message-ID: <359@sjuvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7-Jun-84 07:17:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: sjuvax.359
Posted: Thu Jun  7 07:17:35 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Jun-84 00:44:25 EDT
References: <106@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Organization: Saint Josephs Univ. Phila., Pa.
Lines: 16

[aren't you hungry???]

	yes, but as someone has already put forth, the 5420 is *NOT* VT100
compatible.  It is compatible with the ANSI standard (I forget the number)
from which the vt100 *DEVIATES* in a few minor ways.....

Why wont this gritching about the 5420 go away? It is a good terminal
with its own merits and disadvantages, and people should probably consider
it as such.  It doesn't claim to be vt100 compatible.  It claims to conform
to the appropriate ANBI standard, which it does.

Jon Shapiro
Haverford College
Haverford, Pa.

The opinios expressed herein are solely mine, etc, etc...