Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

shadowfyr · 03-22-2007, 02:57 PM

VT100, like most of the VT class protocols is simply ANSI with a few things stripped out (or rather ANSI is VT100 with things added). Technically, if a client supports ANSI, it should also, when asked, inform the server that yes, it does also support VT100. The problem is usually that ANSI support isn't always 100% complete in clients either, so neither actually works as its supposed to. However, unlike ANSI, VT100 users tend to "expect" all those codes to do something.

Believe me, I have been using clients with ANSI and VT100 in them since all the way back when BBSs where the rage. ANSI should simply extend VT100, not be completely different, but about 5%? of the codes in both are "never" used on most muds, so its become all too common for people to take their client specifications from the muds implimentation, not from the actual official specifications for the protocols, which is why people think that ANSI doesn't support VT100 functions. The later is usually taken from implimentations that do support those functions, but usually still not from the spec sheets. Over the last year or so the client I use has had to add in specifications for at least 4-5 things that where in the specs, but not supported, because they are not common to all muds and so the developer didn't think he "needed" them.

03-22-2007, 02:57 PM	#13
shadowfyr Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 310	VT100, like most of the VT class protocols is simply ANSI with a few things stripped out (or rather ANSI is VT100 with things added). Technically, if a client supports ANSI, it should also, when asked, inform the server that yes, it does also support VT100. The problem is usually that ANSI support isn't always 100% complete in clients either, so neither actually works as its supposed to. However, unlike ANSI, VT100 users tend to "expect" all those codes to do something. Believe me, I have been using clients with ANSI and VT100 in them since all the way back when BBSs where the rage. ANSI should simply extend VT100, not be completely different, but about 5%? of the codes in both are "never" used on most muds, so its become all too common for people to take their client specifications from the muds implimentation, not from the actual official specifications for the protocols, which is why people think that ANSI doesn't support VT100 functions. The later is usually taken from implimentations that do support those functions, but usually still not from the spec sheets. Over the last year or so the client I use has had to add in specifications for at least 4-5 things that where in the specs, but not supported, because they are not common to all muds and so the developer didn't think he "needed" them.