Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #77357 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-29 01:06 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-12-02 09:58 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 210 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-29 01:06 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-11-29 02:01 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-29 03:31 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-29 00:09 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-29 00:22 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-11-29 14:31 -0500
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-11-29 23:51 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 01:21 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-30 00:41 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-30 03:16 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-29 08:28 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-29 02:54 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-29 16:30 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-28 23:53 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-29 02:23 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-29 00:30 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 01:33 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-30 13:54 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 02:03 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-30 14:15 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 02:34 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-30 14:42 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 04:16 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-29 20:20 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 04:34 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-30 17:09 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 06:17 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-30 19:44 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-29 23:36 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 07:39 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-30 13:56 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 09:17 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 13:40 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 00:34 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-03 16:03 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-29 23:07 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 08:20 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-29 23:40 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 08:48 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-30 20:52 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-30 21:04 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-30 00:34 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-30 03:50 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-30 12:16 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-30 06:11 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-30 13:23 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-30 13:18 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-30 13:23 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-30 22:32 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-30 15:10 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-30 21:05 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-01 12:38 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-01 14:43 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-01 12:09 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-02 09:14 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-01 12:27 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-02 10:14 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-01 18:01 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-01 20:41 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-01 12:53 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-01 21:32 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-01 13:55 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-04 10:30 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-01 18:46 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Say, what? <<nothing@nowhere.nohow>> - 2015-12-01 14:07 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-01 23:54 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Say, what? <<nothing@nowhere.nohow>> - 2015-12-01 17:13 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-01 09:08 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-01 20:02 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-01 17:03 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-02 00:17 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-01 16:53 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-01 21:17 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 09:37 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-12-02 10:59 -0500
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-02 17:43 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 13:22 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-03 09:32 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-02 21:12 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-03 10:36 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-02 22:00 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 17:55 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-02 17:04 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-03 01:11 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-03 14:19 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 23:16 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-03 00:54 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-03 04:07 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-03 18:31 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-12-03 13:59 -0500
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-03 19:45 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-03 14:38 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-03 22:43 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-03 12:14 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-03 12:38 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-03 13:19 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-03 05:54 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-04 10:50 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-03 14:26 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-03 09:19 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-03 16:25 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-03 15:33 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-03 16:47 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-03 16:54 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-03 09:32 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-03 18:53 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 19:00 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-04 14:07 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 18:41 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-05 16:09 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-12-05 21:15 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-06 12:35 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-03 09:02 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-03 19:12 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-03 16:58 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-03 15:47 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-03 14:51 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-03 16:50 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-04 10:55 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-03 08:56 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-03 05:24 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-04 08:49 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-03 07:07 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-03 10:27 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-03 09:01 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 10:16 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 01:21 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-03 16:42 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-04 11:15 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 01:57 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-08 09:08 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-04 09:44 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-04 15:58 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-04 11:43 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-04 10:56 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-04 11:20 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-04 15:24 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-04 09:30 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-04 15:52 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-04 09:07 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-04 09:53 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-04 10:56 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-04 15:04 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-04 21:32 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-04 13:38 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-04 16:13 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-04 16:21 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-04 19:10 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-04 19:16 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-04 21:19 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-05 12:44 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-06 09:01 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-06 12:34 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-06 18:32 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-07 10:43 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-07 10:02 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-05 03:53 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-05 09:39 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-05 18:36 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-05 12:26 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-05 11:36 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 16:42 +0530
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-06 03:59 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-07 02:17 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-07 07:33 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 03:57 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 00:58 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-03 01:34 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-03 11:38 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-03 14:09 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-03 10:10 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-03 08:28 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-03 21:33 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-02 21:47 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 16:05 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-02 14:12 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-02 22:47 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-03 14:00 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-03 01:38 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-03 02:20 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-04 10:40 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-12-03 02:42 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-12-01 20:48 -0500
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-02 12:08 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-02 04:21 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-02 14:05 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 01:31 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-02 14:23 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-02 08:00 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-02 16:49 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-02 11:50 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-02 20:02 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-02 12:31 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-03 01:43 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-02 09:21 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-12-02 07:29 -0500
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-02 05:47 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 11:03 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-02 14:16 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-03 09:56 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 13:49 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-12-02 22:11 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 15:06 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-30 22:14 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-29 23:03 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 06:26 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-30 00:39 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-30 01:57 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-29 15:32 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 09:58 -0800
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 16:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n3pmom$t2o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77739 |
On 03/12/15 15:26, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 03/12/15 13:19, BartC wrote: >> On 03/12/2015 12:38, Richard Heathfield wrote: <snip> >> The characters are not a problem. It's all the special rules that are >> dragged in with everything else. >> >> For example, I want to implement some computer language and I want to >> make it case-insensitive. That seems simple enough: I just convert to >> lower or upper-case any character outside a string literal. >> >> With Unicode, however, the same task is now, apparently, impossible. > > That's because the very idea of upper and lower case is a simplification > - entirely appropriate to its original usage but not up to the job of > handling all the complexities of the bewildering variety of language > designs that humans have managed to come up with over the last N > thousand years (adjust N according to taste). > > In the early days of printing, typesetters would store their movable > type (individual back-to-front shapes of letters and other symbols) in a > wide, shallow drawer (a 'case') divided into little compartments, one > compartment for 'a's, one for 'b's, and so on. There was another drawer > just above it, the 'upper case', in which the capital letters were stored. > > That idea *works* - for the Latin alphabet. But printers didn't stick to > the Latin alphabet. They often used 'ligatures' - two or more letters > joined together, such as 'f' and 'i' (so 'office' would be spelled with > five 'letters', not six, because the second f and the i would be joined > into one letter). When 'office' is represented in this way, *there is no > upper case equivalent!*, because there is no 'FI' ligature. It isn't > necessary, it isn't useful, and it isn't even ornamental, so why specify > it? Nit-pick - "office" would have 4 characters, "office", using the ffi ligature, unicode U+FB05.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 15:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3pn6t$uk6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77750 |
On 03/12/15 15:25, David Brown wrote: <snip> > Nit-pick - "office" would have 4 characters, "office", using the ffi > ligature, unicode U+FB05. Clearly you have a more particular interest in typography than I do. :-) -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 16:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n3po2g$2rg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77751 |
On 03/12/15 16:33, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 03/12/15 15:25, David Brown wrote: > > <snip> > >> Nit-pick - "office" would have 4 characters, "office", using the ffi >> ligature, unicode U+FB05. > > Clearly you have a more particular interest in typography than I do. :-) > If you look closely at my posts, you'll see I use a double space after a period. Once you have read the TeXbook, it's hard to forget these things even if you want to. But yes, I believe I am more interested in typography than most people. I also find the history of writing fascinating - I've picked up a few interesting little facts in this discussion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 16:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3pruo$jh8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77755 |
On 03/12/15 15:47, David Brown wrote: > On 03/12/15 16:33, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 03/12/15 15:25, David Brown wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> Nit-pick - "office" would have 4 characters, "office", using the ffi >>> ligature, unicode U+FB05. >> >> Clearly you have a more particular interest in typography than I do. :-) >> > > If you look closely at my posts, you'll see I use a double space after a > period. I used to do that, too (it was standard practice, back in the day). I dropped the habit when I started using word processors that (are supposed to) display a slightly wider space if it occurs after a full stop (when using non-proportional fonts). Even in non-proportional fonts, however, I've found that a single space results in text that is just as readable (to my eyes, at least). > Once you have read the TeXbook, it's hard to forget these > things even if you want to. But yes, I believe I am more interested in > typography than most people. Then you didn't need to re-qualify your earlier statement about people who know about thorn, since you were already included in your own category about people with a particular interest in typography. > I also find the history of writing > fascinating - I've picked up a few interesting little facts in this > discussion. Likewise. It's one of the joys of reading a technical newsgroup that you tend to acquire all kinds of surprising knowledge about things that have nothing to do with the topic of the group. (It's also one of the curses, of course.) -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 09:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b7b2ccd9-4b03-413d-861e-0ad8d5f346c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #77763 |
On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 10:54:16 AM UTC-6, Richard Heathfield wrote: > I used to do that, too (it was standard practice, back in the day). I > dropped the habit when I started using word processors that (are > supposed to) display a slightly wider space if it occurs after a full > stop (when using non-proportional fonts). Even in non-proportional > fonts, however, I've found that a single space results in text that is > just as readable (to my eyes, at least). I find it interesting how thoroughly people bought the revisionist claim that wider spacing after a sentence-ending period was a quirk of people using typewriters, given that examination of typeset material prior to the invention of the typewriter shows that typesetters nearly always used a wider space after a sentence-ending period than after other punctuation or after a non-sentence-ending period. It was only after the invention of the Linotype, which *couldn't* properly handle such spacing, that the convention in the U.S. shifted in favor of the same amount of space after a sentence-ending period as after other kinds of punctuation or non-sentence-ending periods. While I appreciate that such uniformity facilitated quick-and-dirty typesetting tasks, it also erased what used to be a useful distinction between sentence-ending and non-sentence-ending periods; I think it's a shame that those who wanted computers to imitate modern lazy typography have so thoroughly convinced people that the proper way to do that is to have people type one space after sentences, rather than having people type two spaces and having automated systems regard two consecutive spaces as a "wide space" character whose width would depend upon the font being used or other program settings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 18:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n3pveq$3hh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77763 |
On 03/12/15 17:54, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 03/12/15 15:47, David Brown wrote: >> On 03/12/15 16:33, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 03/12/15 15:25, David Brown wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>> Nit-pick - "office" would have 4 characters, "office", using the ffi >>>> ligature, unicode U+FB05. >>> >>> Clearly you have a more particular interest in typography than I do. :-) >>> >> >> If you look closely at my posts, you'll see I use a double space after a >> period. > > I used to do that, too (it was standard practice, back in the day). I > dropped the habit when I started using word processors that (are > supposed to) display a slightly wider space if it occurs after a full > stop (when using non-proportional fonts). Even in non-proportional > fonts, however, I've found that a single space results in text that is > just as readable (to my eyes, at least). > Word processors don't do decent spacing, IME. So I use double spaces after a period there too - and if word processors /did/ have decent typography rules, it wouldn't make any difference how many spaces you use. But nothing has reduced the quality of the typed document as much as putting poor quality word processors in the hands of poorly trained people. (Well, perhaps typewriters were first - but although the typesetting from a typewriter is very limited, at least it was usually consistent.) >> Once you have read the TeXbook, it's hard to forget these >> things even if you want to. But yes, I believe I am more interested in >> typography than most people. > > Then you didn't need to re-qualify your earlier statement about people > who know about thorn, since you were already included in your own > category about people with a particular interest in typography. > Ah, but I knew about thorn before I was interested in typography. >> I also find the history of writing >> fascinating - I've picked up a few interesting little facts in this >> discussion. > > Likewise. It's one of the joys of reading a technical newsgroup that you > tend to acquire all kinds of surprising knowledge about things that have > nothing to do with the topic of the group. (It's also one of the curses, > of course.) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 19:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <S11jOK.vVS.1li46@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #77750 |
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 04:25:28PM +0100, David Brown wrote: > On 03/12/15 15:26, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > On 03/12/15 13:19, BartC wrote: > >> On 03/12/2015 12:38, Richard Heathfield wrote: > <snip> > >> The characters are not a problem. It's all the special rules that are > >> dragged in with everything else. > >> > >> For example, I want to implement some computer language and I want to > >> make it case-insensitive. That seems simple enough: I just convert to > >> lower or upper-case any character outside a string literal. > >> > >> With Unicode, however, the same task is now, apparently, impossible. > > > > That's because the very idea of upper and lower case is a simplification > > - entirely appropriate to its original usage but not up to the job of > > handling all the complexities of the bewildering variety of language > > designs that humans have managed to come up with over the last N > > thousand years (adjust N according to taste). > > > > In the early days of printing, typesetters would store their movable > > type (individual back-to-front shapes of letters and other symbols) in a > > wide, shallow drawer (a 'case') divided into little compartments, one > > compartment for 'a's, one for 'b's, and so on. There was another drawer > > just above it, the 'upper case', in which the capital letters were stored. > > > > That idea *works* - for the Latin alphabet. But printers didn't stick to > > the Latin alphabet. They often used 'ligatures' - two or more letters > > joined together, such as 'f' and 'i' (so 'office' would be spelled with > > five 'letters', not six, because the second f and the i would be joined > > into one letter). When 'office' is represented in this way, *there is no > > upper case equivalent!*, because there is no 'FI' ligature. It isn't > > necessary, it isn't useful, and it isn't even ornamental, so why specify > > it? > > Nit-pick - "office" would have 4 characters, "office", using the ffi > ligature, unicode U+FB05. Brutal. Regards, Steve Thompson -- "If I had a nickel for every time some idiot called me about a computer problem that turned out to be user error, I would be able to retire and spend the rest of my days cultivating clues in my backyard hillside garden." -- MysteryDog in 24hoursupport.helpdesk.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-04 14:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n3s32n$5f7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77812 |
On 03/12/15 20:00, Steve Thompson wrote: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 04:25:28PM +0100, David Brown wrote: >> >> Nit-pick - "office" would have 4 characters, "office", using the ffi >> ligature, unicode U+FB05. > > Brutal. > Let me follow up with another vicious and unprovoked attack... You've got a bug in your newsclient setup that made your post "Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit" and "Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii". This mangled my nice "office" into "office" - which not only caused a mess by changing from the "charset=utf-8", but is even illegal in 7-bit US ASCII. :-) (See, I am not really brutal.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-04 18:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tTpJtD.LYD.Q63LN@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #77818 |
On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 02:07:53PM +0100, David Brown wrote: > On 03/12/15 20:00, Steve Thompson wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 04:25:28PM +0100, David Brown wrote: > >> > >> Nit-pick - "office" would have 4 characters, "office", using the ffi > >> ligature, unicode U+FB05. > > > > Brutal. > > > > Let me follow up with another vicious and unprovoked attack... > > You've got a bug in your newsclient setup that made your post > "Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit" and "Content-Type: text/plain; > charset=us-ascii". > > This mangled my nice "office" into "office" - which not only caused a mess > by changing from the "charset=utf-8", but is even illegal in 7-bit US ASCII. Horrors! In my editor the first "office" contains 6 octets and 9 in the second, which may be your client or mine. I'll inspect my posted article spool and verify that the text is preserved as I see it in my editor. As to the headers, I can only cry /mea culpa/. I have a naive script which mangles headers on the basis of the Newsgroups: and From: header and as such does not take into account the nature of article body text. [Editing the spooled file] Looks fine to me. Your client might be mangling the Unicode characters on the basis of its confusion from the headers. > :-) > > (See, I am not really brutal.) But it seems that Unicode is. Regards, Steve Thompson -- "If I had a nickel for every time some idiot called me about a computer problem that turned out to be user error, I would be able to retire and spend the rest of my days cultivating clues in my backyard hillside garden." -- MysteryDog in 24hoursupport.helpdesk.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-05 16:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n3uuib$5sr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77846 |
On 04/12/15 19:41, Steve Thompson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 02:07:53PM +0100, David Brown wrote: >> On 03/12/15 20:00, Steve Thompson wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 04:25:28PM +0100, David Brown wrote: >>>> >>>> Nit-pick - "office" would have 4 characters, "office", using the ffi >>>> ligature, unicode U+FB05. >>> >>> Brutal. >>> >> >> Let me follow up with another vicious and unprovoked attack... >> >> You've got a bug in your newsclient setup that made your post >> "Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit" and "Content-Type: text/plain; >> charset=us-ascii". >> >> This mangled my nice "office" into "office" - which not only caused a mess >> by changing from the "charset=utf-8", but is even illegal in 7-bit US ASCII. > > Horrors! In my editor the first "office" contains 6 octets and 9 in > the second, which may be your client or mine. I'll inspect my posted > article spool and verify that the text is preserved as I see it in my > editor. As to the headers, I can only cry /mea culpa/. I have a > naive script which mangles headers on the basis of the Newsgroups: and > From: header and as such does not take into account the nature of > article body text. > > [Editing the spooled file] > > Looks fine to me. Your client might be mangling the Unicode > characters on the basis of its confusion from the headers. > No, my client is fine. It respects the content type headers, and presents the posts on the assumption that the poster's client was not lying - unless I manually force it to use a different encoding for display. When replying, it keeps the same encoding as the poster, unless I manually override it. It is /your/ editor, client or scripts that are scrambling the headers and producing a mess for anything outside plain ascii. You are not even following your own rules - you are taking the unicode characters expressed using two octets, pretending these are two individual characters (who knows how your client might display that, since it apparently only believes in 7-bit ASCII), and then resending them. >> :-) >> >> (See, I am not really brutal.) > > But it seems that Unicode is. > No, it is not Unicode that is brutal - it is clients or scripts that can't follow standards and even lie about their own limited abilities that are brutal. 7-bit ASCII is fine for many purposes, but it is not ideal for a discussion about Unicode!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-05 21:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fvvWP6.ibJ.YQxTN@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #77888 |
On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 04:09:17PM +0100, David Brown wrote: > On 04/12/15 19:41, Steve Thompson wrote: > >On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 02:07:53PM +0100, David Brown wrote: > >>On 03/12/15 20:00, Steve Thompson wrote: > >>>On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 04:25:28PM +0100, David Brown wrote: > >>>> > >>>>Nit-pick - "office" would have 4 characters, "office", using the ffi > >>>>ligature, unicode U+FB05. > >>> > >>>Brutal. > >>> > >> > >>Let me follow up with another vicious and unprovoked attack... > >> > >>You've got a bug in your newsclient setup that made your post > >>"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit" and "Content-Type: text/plain; > >>charset=us-ascii". > >> > >>This mangled my nice "office" into "office" - which not only > >>caused a mess > >>by changing from the "charset=utf-8", but is even illegal in 7-bit US > >>ASCII. I may have spoken too soon. As you see above, the affected code sequences have grown again. It is not my editor (jove, which is eight-bit clean even if it does not properly display high-bit chars except as \000 octets. The newsreader may be the problem. I will investigate. > No, my client is fine. It respects the content type headers, and > presents the posts on the assumption that the poster's client was not > lying - unless I manually force it to use a different encoding for > display. When replying, it keeps the same encoding as the poster, > unless I manually override it. > > It is /your/ editor, client or scripts that are scrambling the headers > and producing a mess for anything outside plain ascii. You are not even > following your own rules - you are taking the unicode characters > expressed using two octets, pretending these are two individual > characters (who knows how your client might display that, since it > apparently only believes in 7-bit ASCII), and then resending them. Probably the client. The script only mangles the headers; it uses formail(1) to do transformation of individual header fields. I'll let you in on a little secret: it is not nn. > >>:-) > >> > >>(See, I am not really brutal.) > > > >But it seems that Unicode is. > > > > No, it is not Unicode that is brutal - it is clients or scripts that > can't follow standards and even lie about their own limited abilities > that are brutal. 7-bit ASCII is fine for many purposes, but it is not > ideal for a discussion about Unicode! Yeah, well validating input is often a programming aspect that gets short shrift. I apologise for abusing the standards, but note that it will take some time to fix properly. Regards, Steve Thompson -- "If I had a nickel for every time some idiot called me about a computer problem that turned out to be user error, I would be able to retire and spend the rest of my days cultivating clues in my backyard hillside garden." -- MysteryDog in 24hoursupport.helpdesk.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-06 12:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n416cl$2qg$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77918 |
On 05/12/15 22:15, Steve Thompson wrote: > Yeah, well validating input is often a programming aspect that gets > short shrift. I apologise for abusing the standards, but note that it > will take some time to fix properly. > It's no problem - as long as you are aware of the situation, you can fix it or work around it when it suits you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 09:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnegf3qxd0.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #77734 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 03/12/2015 12:38, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 03/12/15 12:14, BartC wrote:
>>> For example, DOCX, the de factor standard for describing written
>>> documents, is over 5000 pages! All I'm interested in is specifying
>>> Bold, Italic, Underline, Font, Size and Colour -- a mark-up scheme
>>> for those surely wouldn't take more than one page. So what are the
>>> over 4999 pages about?
If that's all you need, why use DOCX?
I'm not familiar with the DOCX standard, but my vague and quite
possibly mistaken understanding is that a lot of that complexity
is to support every old version of Microsoft Word in a backward
compatible manner. It's likely that if such a standard were designed
from scratch, it would be a lot smaller -- but still larger and
more complicated than either of us might be comfortable with.
Comparison to the OpenDocument standard might be illuminating.
I haven't tracked down the relevant standard documents myself,
so take this as pure speculation.
There's a parallel to the Unicode standard, which has to support every
major written language in the world. Like any standard, it does so
imperfectly, but it's not at all clear how it could be substantially
simplified while still meeting its requirements.
[...]
> The characters are not a problem. It's all the special rules that are
> dragged in with everything else.
>
> For example, I want to implement some computer language and I want to
> make it case-insensitive. That seems simple enough: I just convert to
> lower or upper-case any character outside a string literal.
>
> With Unicode, however, the same task is now, apparently, impossible.
Unicode didn't create the complexity of representing text. It merely
exposed the exiting complexity created by the way written language
has evolved over the last several thousand years. It didn't make
simple things complex; it made complex things possible.
As for your computer language, what characters do you want to allow
in identifiers? If you want to permit only the 26 Latin letters,
there's not much of a problem. If you want to permit all Unicode
letters, then yes, case-insensitivity is going to be difficult --
not because Unicode made it difficult, but because case-insensitivity
is a hard problem.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 19:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3q427$nap$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77765 |
On 03/12/2015 17:02, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> On 03/12/15 12:14, BartC wrote: >>>> For example, DOCX, the de factor standard for describing written >>>> documents, is over 5000 pages! All I'm interested in is specifying >>>> Bold, Italic, Underline, Font, Size and Colour -- a mark-up scheme >>>> for those surely wouldn't take more than one page. So what are the >>>> over 4999 pages about? > > If that's all you need, why use DOCX? I don't; I use RTF (Rich Text Format) which is much, much simpler. I use that as a way to get data into Word. My own marked up text format is even simpler than that, but covers the half dozen items above that are probably all that most people want to do with text a lot of the time. > Comparison to the OpenDocument standard might be illuminating. I can only find the ECMA-376 reference, for Open Office, also 5000 pages, but covering Drawing and Presentation areas as well as Word Processing (as a PDF file, which is telling!). I can't find the DOCX docs any more. > Like any standard, it does so > imperfectly, but it's not at all clear how it could be substantially > simplified while still meeting its requirements. It's amazing how succinct such specifications can be when they have to fit on a floppy disk and the software can only be so big! >> For example, I want to implement some computer language and I want to >> make it case-insensitive. That seems simple enough: I just convert to >> lower or upper-case any character outside a string literal. > As for your computer language, what characters do you want to allow > in identifiers? If you want to permit only the 26 Latin letters, > there's not much of a problem. I used to allow all the accented and special characters, but found that programmers weren't interested in keywords in their own language. I can't remember how much use was made of them within identifiers. But they all had well-defined upper and lower-case versions. Currently, because UTF8 and everything is such a can of worms, I've gone back to A-Z and a-z. Probably, UTF8 string literals will work if nothing is done with the string. Just like C. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 16:58 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n3qhaa$cns$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77774 |
On 03-Dec-15 13:12, BartC wrote: > On 03/12/2015 17:02, Keith Thompson wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> On 03/12/15 12:14, BartC wrote: >>>>> For example, DOCX, the de factor standard for describing >>>>> written documents, is over 5000 pages! All I'm interested in >>>>> is specifying Bold, Italic, Underline, Font, Size and Colour >>>>> -- a mark-up scheme for those surely wouldn't take more than >>>>> one page. So what are the over 4999 pages about? >> >> If that's all you need, why use DOCX? > > I don't; I use RTF (Rich Text Format) which is much, much simpler. I > use that as a way to get data into Word. My own marked up text format > is even simpler than that, but covers the half dozen items above that > are probably all that most people want to do with text a lot of the > time. Several companies (even Microsoft) have tried to come out with "Lite" word processors, spreadsheets, etc. that are smaller and cheaper than MSWord, Excel, etc., on the same assumption that 90% of users only need 10% of the functionality. However, in every case, they've been utter failures--even at $0--because each user needs a _different_ 10% of the functionality. That is why Google Docs and Office Online have (so far) been failures, and why OpenOffice/LibreOffice suddenly started getting traction only when it approached 100% of MSOffice's functionality. DOCX, XLSX, etc. are so complex, as one blogger pointed out, because every feature in the apps must be represented in their file formats, so the more features the apps have, the more complex the files get--and we already know that removing features doesn't work. In other words: "Show me your [sources] and conceal your [file formats], and I shall continue to be mystified. Show me your [file formats], and I won’t usually need your [sources]; they’ll be obvious." --Fred Brooks, TMMM (1975) >> Like any standard, it does so imperfectly, but it's not at all >> clear how it could be substantially simplified while still meeting >> its requirements. > > It's amazing how succinct such specifications can be when they have > to fit on a floppy disk and the software can only be so big! That's because space limited functionality, and people accepted the limitations because there was no alternative. They wouldn't accept the same today because they know they don't have to. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 15:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n3pkhs$jv4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77730 |
On 03/12/15 13:38, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 03/12/15 12:14, BartC wrote: > > <snip> > >> (I believe many things are far more complex that they need to be. > > That is undoubtedly true. Nevertheless, we should not forget Einstein: > "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to > make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible > without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single > datum of experience." Einstein may even have approved of the simpler way > that this idea is often attributed to him: "Everything should be as > simple as possible, but not simpler." > > We should be wary, then, of making things simpler than possible. > >> For >> example, DOCX, the de factor standard for describing written documents, >> is over 5000 pages! All I'm interested in is specifying Bold, Italic, >> Underline, Font, Size and Colour -- a mark-up scheme for those surely >> wouldn't take more than one page. So what are the over 4999 pages about? > > Other stuff - stuff that you don't care about but other people do care > about. Tables, indents, paragraph spacing, alignment, bullets, lists, > embedded images, indexes... > > I know you will struggle with the idea, but when the .docx format was > being designed, "If BartC won't need it, we shouldn't include it" was > not one of the constraints. The flaw in your reasoning here is the the idea that the .docx format was "designed". It (along with xlsx and pptx) was thrown together without any structure or guiding plan other than "Panic! Some people are refusing to buy MS Office because its formats are not XML and not documented. And if we use a /real/ standard such as ISO 26300, or design a proper documented format, it will spoil our lock in". Thus they took their amazingly inconsistent, complex, unreliable and undocumented binary formats and wrapped them in an xml layer. Of the 5000 pages of documentation, about 4500 are to cover the inconsistencies, ms-specific extensions to support their binary formats, and to explain why they can't build upon existing standards but need to make their own new "standards" to cover things like the 29th February 1900. And then, of course, MS Office does not produce documents that actually follow the .docx "standard". And it certainly could not be used to produce a 5000 page document... > >> Maybe Unicode suffers from the same problem.) > > Do you mean it should throw out all the characters that you personally > will never need? >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 14:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3pkpo$l0n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77742 |
On 03/12/15 14:47, David Brown wrote: <snip> > And then, of course, MS Office does not produce documents that actually > follow the .docx "standard". And it certainly could not be used to > produce a 5000 page document... Yes, I did wonder about that. I don't see any problem about creating a 5000-page document in, say, LaTeX on a *nix box, but in MS WORD?!? Not a chance. Having said that, I hope that the rest of your reply was tongue-in-cheek, as I'd hate to think that the world worked like that. (My optimism may be incurable.) -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 16:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n3po8g$3ik$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77744 |
On 03/12/15 15:51, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 03/12/15 14:47, David Brown wrote: > > <snip> > >> And then, of course, MS Office does not produce documents that actually >> follow the .docx "standard". And it certainly could not be used to >> produce a 5000 page document... > > Yes, I did wonder about that. I don't see any problem about creating a > 5000-page document in, say, LaTeX on a *nix box, but in MS WORD?!? Not a > chance. > > Having said that, I hope that the rest of your reply was > tongue-in-cheek, as I'd hate to think that the world worked like that. > (My optimism may be incurable.) > I'd hate to burst your bubble by saying it was basically true, or by telling you how MS nearly brought down the whole ISO system while forcing .docx through the standards bodies, so I suppose I will have to keep quiet. As incurable diseases go, optimism is not a bad one!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-04 10:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <566170d9.2629015@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #77744 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > On 03/12/15 14:47, David Brown wrote: > > <snip> > > > And then, of course, MS Office does not produce documents that actually > > follow the .docx "standard". And it certainly could not be used to > > produce a 5000 page document... > > Yes, I did wonder about that. I don't see any problem about creating a > 5000-page document in, say, LaTeX on a *nix box, but in MS WORD?!? Not a > chance. > > Having said that, I hope that the rest of your reply was > tongue-in-cheek, as I'd hate to think that the world worked like that. > (My optimism may be incurable.) Let's try and cure it then, on this point: have you read the Halloween Documents? Oh, trust us, the world _does_ work like that, at least inside Microsoft. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 08:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n3pl1m$lvt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77730 |
On 03-Dec-15 06:38, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 03/12/15 12:14, BartC wrote: >> (I believe many things are far more complex that they need to be. > > That is undoubtedly true. Nevertheless, we should not forget > Einstein: "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all > theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few > as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation > of a single datum of experience." Einstein may even have approved of > the simpler way that this idea is often attributed to him: > "Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler." > > We should be wary, then, of making things simpler than possible. I prefer this formulation of the same idea: "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." --Antoine de Saint Exupéry, Terre des Hommes (1939) S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web