Text 6875, 137 rader
Skriven 2013-02-24 12:21:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av mark lewis (1:3634/12.42)
Ärende: LOL!
============
Hello mark,

On Wednesday February 20 2013 13:45, you wrote to me:

 ml>> that is NOT an ö single byte character...

 MvdV>> Indeed, it is the two byte UTF-8 encoding fot the small o with
 MvdV>> diaresis. Your point?

 ml> two characters != one character

Correct. One character however can take two bytes to encode.

 MvdV>>> Which is correct. C3 B6 is the UTF-8 code sequence for the o
 MvdV>>> umlaut. My message was encoded in UTF-8, signalled by a CHRS:
 MvdV>>> UTF-8 4 kludge.

 ml>> again, it is incorrect implementation

 MvdV>> Who are you to decide it is incorrect?

 ml> who are you to decide that it is correct? isn't is up to the
 ml> developers to decide  that so that their software can easily
 ml> interoperate with all the other software being used?

Which is wat they did. The developers of my software decided that the CHRS
kludge applies both to the header and the message body, so if I choose UTF-8
for the encoding , the header is encoded in UTF-8 as well. hence the two bytes
for the o umlaut. That was not my dcison, it was the decision of the developers
that wrote this software. By your own line of reasoning, it must therefore be
correct.

 ml>  it definitely isn't the FTSC's decision or that of its chairperson or
 ml> individual members...

It was not me that made the decision...

 ml>> and is apparently the cause of many character conversion
 ml>> discussions and arguments...

 MvdV>> So what's new in Fidonet?

 ml> so you propose to continue the fighting and arguing rather than
 ml> foistering cooperation and fellowship?

Not at all. There is no need to argue, the problem was soved over a decade ago.
If you want to use more thatn just ASCII, use the CHRS kludge. It applies to
borth the body and the header. Problem solved.

 ml> no... sorry... your vision is narrow and jaded... the new stranglehold
 ml> coming up is the forcing of UTF-8 on all systems... even those which
 ml> cannot handle it...

No one is forcing anything. he who wants to use pure ASCI can continue to do so
indefinitely, as nothing will be broken for theos usimng jsut ASCII.

 MvdV>> Sorry, you are 20 years behind. The rest of the world has moved
 MvdV>> in and decided that CP437 only won't do either.

 ml> everything was still compatible... the new proposals are going to
 ml> force breakage of one sort or another...

It is not a proposal, it is and has been currenmt pratise for over a decade.

 MvdV>> Software written under the ASCII only or CP437 stranglehold is
 MvdV>> still complient as long as it sticks to ASCII or CP437 only .

 ml> the problem is the /USERS/ loosing out when they cannot read what
 ml> should be a simple message...

They can still read the simple messages that contain just ASCII. They never
could read cyrillic anyway, so they loose nothing.

 ml> email and news are still plain ASCII text...

No, they are not. When I write a Euro sign in an e-mail it is encoded in UTF-8.

 ml> if you don't believe that, then you should look at the source code of
 ml> the messages... even those carrying pictures are in plain ASCII
 ml> text...

The encoding for embedded or attached pictures has nothing to do with the
encoding of the text.

Go surf the internet and look a bit further than the US and Canadian borders.
The vast majority of web pages is encoded in UTF-8 these days. Nr 2 is ISO
8859-1 and you ay find an occasional page in KOI8-R. The rest is history. Foir
all intents and purposes UTF-8 is the standard encoding scheme for the world
Wide Web.

 MvdV>>> Sorry to burst your bubble, but CURRENT practise is that text
 MvdV>>> in the header field is NOT limited to ASCII only. Has been
 MvdV>>> that way for at least ten years.

 ml>> where is this documented?

 MvdV>> FTS-1

 ml>>> yes, they would indicate the same if ù was used

Whatever.

 MvdV>>> It WAS used!

 MvdV>> Only because your reader fails to realise that a multi byte
 MvdV>> encoding scheme is used. It is YOUR reader that fails to
 MvdV>> display oit properly. Your loss.

 ml> if you didn't type in two characters, how can you say that your
 ml> software is right for generating two??

You keep mixing up bytes and characters.

My software did NOT generate two characters. It generated ONE character encoded
as two bytes.

 ml>>  and stop showing that i wrote things that i didn't...

 MvdV>> I didn't. All I did was use a different encoding scheme. It is
 MvdV>> YOUR software that presents it to you as two characters.

 ml> which your software broke by not rendering it as i entered it...
 ml> especially when it came back to me...

So what you are basically saying is that when I answer a message originating
from your system, I should always use the encoding in which it was received.
Yes?

If yiou think that is the right way to do it, why do you not follow your own
rule and use MY encosing scheme when commenting on my messages instead of
always using CP437?


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)