Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #77961 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-11-27 19:55 +0100 |
| Last post | 2025-12-08 18:40 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 234 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Recent history of vi Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-11-27 19:55 +0100
Re: Recent history of vi Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-11-28 22:08 +0100
Re: Recent history of vi Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-12-03 13:37 +0100
Re: Recent history of vi "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-03 13:56 +0100
Re: Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-03 13:58 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-03 15:40 +0100
Re: Recent history of vi Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-12-03 07:39 -0700
Re: Recent history of vi Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2025-12-06 16:46 +0100
Re: Recent history of vi Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-13 08:28 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-12-15 10:38 +0100
Re: Recent history of vi antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-12-16 02:20 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-16 02:52 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-16 11:53 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-16 17:42 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-12-17 10:39 +0100
Re: Recent history of vi "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-16 23:34 +0100
Re: Recent history of vi Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-17 01:49 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Diego Garcia <dg@linux.rocks> - 2025-12-03 14:40 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-12-04 07:00 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-12-05 20:52 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-12-05 15:57 -0700
Re: Recent history of vi candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-12-08 18:40 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-12-13 11:42 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-12-13 11:40 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-12-13 15:58 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-06 12:22 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-06 19:51 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-12-06 15:13 -0700
Re: polyglot programming, Recent history of vi John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-12-06 22:28 +0000
Re: polyglot programming, Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-07 01:39 +0000
Re: polyglot programming, Recent history of vi Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-12-07 06:19 +0000
Re: polyglot programming, Recent history of vi Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-12-06 22:50 -0800
Re: polyglot programming, Recent history of vi "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-12-07 10:52 +0000
Re: polyglot programming, Recent history of vi "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-12-22 12:02 +0000
Re: polyglot programming, Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-07 18:34 +0000
Re: polyglot programming, Recent history of vi Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-16 00:02 +0000
Re: polyglot programming, Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-16 01:41 +0000
Re: polyglot programming, Recent history of vi Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-12-16 07:39 -0700
Re: polyglot programming, Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-16 15:57 +0000
Re: polyglot programming, Recent history of vi Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-17 07:13 +0000
Re: polyglot programming, Recent history of vi Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-12-07 16:58 +0000
Re: polyglot programming, Recent history of vi Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-16 00:00 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-12-07 00:35 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-07 19:48 +0100
Re: Recent history of vi Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2025-12-07 00:38 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-07 01:31 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-07 11:18 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-07 18:52 +0000
Re: more polyglot programming, was Recent history of vi John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-12-07 19:39 +0000
Re: more polyglot programming, was Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-07 20:27 +0000
Re: more polyglot programming, was Recent history of vi Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-12-07 14:31 -0700
Re: more polyglot programming, was Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-08 01:46 +0000
Re: more polyglot programming, was Recent history of vi Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-12-08 05:53 +0000
Re: more polyglot programming, was Recent history of vi Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-12-07 22:25 -0800
Re: more polyglot programming, was Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-08 08:34 +0000
Re: more polyglot programming, was Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-08 08:48 +0000
Re: more polyglot programming, was Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-08 23:43 +0000
Re: more polyglot programming, was Recent history of vi Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-15 23:56 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-12-07 16:31 +0100
Re: Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-07 18:49 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-12-07 19:12 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-07 19:44 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-12-07 12:14 -0800
Re: Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-07 20:26 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-08 03:05 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-08 08:46 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-12-08 16:39 +0100
Re: Recent history of vi Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2025-12-08 16:07 -0500
Re: Recent history of vi "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-10 13:15 +0100
Re: Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-10 13:43 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-11 02:54 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-11 08:55 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-15 00:41 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-12-07 14:30 -0700
Re: Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-08 03:12 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-12-07 11:52 -0800
Re: Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-07 20:23 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-12-07 22:54 +0100
Re: Recent history of vi Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-12-07 14:25 -0800
Re: Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-08 08:25 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-12-08 16:26 +0100
Re: Recent history of vi Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-12-08 12:15 -0700
Re: Recent history of vi Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2025-12-08 16:13 -0500
Re: Recent history of vi "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-10 13:19 +0100
Re: Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-09 00:08 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-08 23:58 +0000
Greek origins of Christian scriptures [was Re: Recent history of vi] Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2025-12-07 18:17 -0500
Re: Recent history of vi Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-12-08 01:35 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-08 08:34 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-08 14:23 +0100
Re: Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-09 01:10 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-12-09 04:25 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2025-12-09 04:47 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-10 15:16 +0100
Re: Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-10 16:59 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-11 02:55 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-12-10 19:34 -0800
Re: Recent history of vi drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2025-12-12 16:13 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-12-13 15:51 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-12-14 04:57 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-12-13 21:21 -0800
Re: Recent history of vi Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-20 00:21 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-20 05:52 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-08 02:38 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-08 08:21 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-12-08 07:38 -0700
Re: Recent history of vi Niklas Karlsson <nikke.karlsson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-12 06:59 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-12 07:35 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-12-08 16:35 +0100
Re: Recent history of vi "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-10 13:54 +0100
Re: Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-10 13:41 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-12-10 23:07 +0100
Re: Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-11 08:52 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-12-11 20:54 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-11 20:57 +0000
Re: linguistic hegemony, was Recent history of vi John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-12-12 02:01 +0000
Re: linguistic hegemony, was Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-12 02:27 +0000
Re: linguistic hegemony, was Recent history of vi "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-12 03:28 +0100
Re: linguistic hegemony, was Recent history of vi Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-12-11 21:43 -0800
Re: linguistic hegemony, was Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-12 07:25 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-12-12 09:57 +0100
EU (was: Re: Recent history of vi "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-12-12 09:53 +0000
Re: EU (was: Re: Recent history of vi Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-12-12 11:51 +0100
Re: EU The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-12 11:54 +0000
Re: EU rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-12 19:26 +0000
Re: EU Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-12-13 12:01 +0100
Re: EU Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-20 00:23 +0000
Re: EU The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-15 18:34 +0000
Re: EU rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-15 20:59 +0000
Re: EU The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-15 21:34 +0000
Re: EU rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-15 23:24 +0000
Re: EU Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-12-16 05:54 +0000
Re: EU Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-12-16 12:47 -0500
Re: EU rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-16 19:57 +0000
Re: EU "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-17 13:27 +0100
Re: EU c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-17 22:05 -0500
Re: EU Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-12-17 07:34 -0500
Re: EU Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-12-16 12:42 -0500
Re: EU scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-12-16 18:14 +0000
Re: EU rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-16 19:55 +0000
Re: EU scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-12-16 20:05 +0000
Re: EU rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-16 20:30 +0000
Re: EU scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-12-16 23:15 +0000
Re: EU rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-17 01:49 +0000
Re: EU Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-12-17 07:32 -0500
Re: EU rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-17 18:53 +0000
Re: EU Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-12-16 05:54 +0000
Re: EU rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-16 08:06 +0000
Re: EU The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-16 10:33 +0000
Re: EU rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-16 20:02 +0000
Re: EU The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-17 01:09 +0000
Re: EU rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-17 01:18 +0000
Re: EU c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-17 03:03 -0500
Re: EU "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-18 23:26 +0100
Re: EU c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-19 02:29 -0500
Re: EU "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-12-18 17:28 +0000
Re: EU c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-19 00:32 -0500
Re: EU The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-19 10:47 +0000
Re: EU rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-19 19:30 +0000
Re: EU scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-12-19 20:01 +0000
Re: EU Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-12-19 22:03 +0000
Re: EU John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-12-19 14:08 -0800
Re: EU scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-12-19 22:33 +0000
Re: EU rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-20 05:12 +0000
Re: EU Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-12-20 20:45 +0000
Re: EU rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-21 03:41 +0000
Re: EU Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-12-22 01:00 +0000
Re: EU rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-22 07:06 +0000
Re: EU c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-22 02:21 -0500
Re: EU rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-22 19:06 +0000
Re: EU Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-12-22 14:41 -0800
Re: EU c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-23 01:59 -0500
Re: EU rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-23 19:47 +0000
Re: EU Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-12-23 21:18 +0000
Re: EU scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-12-23 22:38 +0000
Re: EU Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-12-23 23:32 +0000
Re: EU "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-12-24 10:24 +0000
Re: EU The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-24 12:36 +0000
Re: EU rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-23 23:27 +0000
Re: EU Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-12-23 23:40 +0000
Re: EU rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-24 07:02 +0000
Re: EU "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-12-24 10:32 +0000
Re: EU Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2025-12-24 15:04 +0000
Re: EU Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-12-24 23:28 +0000
Re: EU c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-23 01:21 -0500
Re: EU scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-12-22 16:38 +0000
Re: EU Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-12-22 17:33 +0000
Re: EU c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-20 01:20 -0500
Re: EU The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-20 10:39 +0000
Re: EU rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-21 03:10 +0000
Re: EU c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-21 14:29 -0500
Re: EU The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-21 20:09 +0000
Re: EU rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-21 20:52 +0000
Re: EU c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-22 00:59 -0500
Re: EU rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-21 03:07 +0000
Re: EU c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-17 00:04 -0500
Re: EU rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-17 07:43 +0000
Re: EU The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-16 10:30 +0000
Re: EU Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-12-16 05:54 +0000
Re: EU The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-16 10:25 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-12 11:53 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-12-12 20:27 +0100
Yes,{, Prime} Minister (was: Re: Recent history of vi) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-12 23:27 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-12-13 15:55 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-15 18:38 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-15 22:40 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-12-15 15:44 -0800
Re: Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-16 01:59 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-16 10:22 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-16 10:18 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-16 20:45 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-17 10:14 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-16 10:02 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-16 20:13 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-12-17 13:59 +0100
Re: Recent history of vi Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-17 07:06 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-12-10 23:06 +0100
Re: Recent history of vi "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-11 19:38 +0100
Re: Recent history of vi rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-08 02:03 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-08 08:41 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Niklas Karlsson <nikke.karlsson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-12 07:09 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-12 11:49 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-07 20:14 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-12-07 22:56 +0100
Re: Recent history of vi The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-08 08:18 +0000
Re: Unicode (was Re: Recent history of vi) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-15 00:32 +0000
Re: Unicode (was Re: Recent history of vi) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-14 23:32 +0000
Re: Recent history of vi Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-12-15 10:52 +0100
Re: Unicode, not Recent history of vi John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-12-05 01:59 +0000
Re: Unicode, not Recent history of vi Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-05 10:14 +0000
Re: Unicode, not Recent history of vi Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-05 10:35 +0000
Re: Unicode, not Recent history of vi "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-05 12:05 +0100
Re: Unicode, not Recent history of vi Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2025-12-06 16:41 +0100
Re: Unicode, not Recent history of vi candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-12-08 18:40 +0000
Page 1 of 12 [1] 2 3 … 12 Next page →
| From | Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-27 19:55 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Recent history of vi |
| Message-ID | <10ga6r1$7ph$1@news.misty.com> |
On 2025-11-22 19:20, Alexander Schreiber wrote: > Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote: >> On 2025-11-18 21:29, Eli the Bearded wrote: >>> In comp.os.linux.misc, Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-16 21:59, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>>>> Without UTF-8, you could not have “€” or “©” or “±” or those curly quotes. >>>> Of course you could. >>>> They exist just fine in Latin-1 (hmm, maybe not the quotes...). >>> >>> The Latin-1 I know does not have a Euro symbol. It does have the generic >>> currency placeholder at 0xA5: ¤ >> >> Yeah. Sorry. That came in 8859-15. >> >>> Elijah >>> ------ >>> likes utf-8 better than iso-8859-$WHATEVER >> That don't even make sense. UTF-8 is just a way to encode large integers >> in a variable sequence of 8-bit bytes. >> Which of course makes it a mess to figure out how long a string actually is. >> But I guess what you actually mean is that you like Unicode better than >> 8859-whatever. >> I couldn't disagree more. Endless ways to represent the exact same >> character, and weird things like sometimes having a separate codepoint >> for units or prefixes, but sometimes using normal ASCII for them, and >> then you have sometimes different codepoints because of colors, but >> sometimes not. > > Well, a big part of the reason is that human writing systems across > the globe are, in fact, quite an impressive mess from an engineering > point of view, mostly not being properly designed and all that. ;-) I know. But the Unicode wreck can't be blamed on the human writing system "mess". It created one completely on its own. >> It's a trainwreck, but now we're stuck with it. :( > > At least it sorta mostly kinda works for a somewhat wide range of > languages and scripts and you can have different scripts (latin, > cyrillic, arabic and others) in the same text. Which beats having to > figure out which code page to use for which text by quite a margin. > I _have_ been through the mess of "US ASCII works, good luck with > anything beyond that" that was text processing on e.g. MS-DOS (and > variants) and early Windows. And my native language (German) uses > essentially US-ASCII plus only a small number of letters outside of > that to begin with. Imagine if your native script has _no_ overlap > with that. Just because there was a problem it don't follow that Unicode was a good solution. Johnny
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-28 22:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <slrn10ik3r5.2dppt.als@mordor.angband.thangorodrim.de> |
| In reply to | #77961 |
Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote:
> On 2025-11-22 19:20, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
>> Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-18 21:29, Eli the Bearded wrote:
>>>> In comp.os.linux.misc, Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-16 21:59, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>> Without UTF-8, you could not have “€” or “©” or “±” or those curly quotes.
>>>>> Of course you could.
>>>>> They exist just fine in Latin-1 (hmm, maybe not the quotes...).
>>>>
>>>> The Latin-1 I know does not have a Euro symbol. It does have the generic
>>>> currency placeholder at 0xA5: ¤
>>>
>>> Yeah. Sorry. That came in 8859-15.
>>>
>>>> Elijah
>>>> ------
>>>> likes utf-8 better than iso-8859-$WHATEVER
>>> That don't even make sense. UTF-8 is just a way to encode large integers
>>> in a variable sequence of 8-bit bytes.
>>> Which of course makes it a mess to figure out how long a string actually is.
>>> But I guess what you actually mean is that you like Unicode better than
>>> 8859-whatever.
>>> I couldn't disagree more. Endless ways to represent the exact same
>>> character, and weird things like sometimes having a separate codepoint
>>> for units or prefixes, but sometimes using normal ASCII for them, and
>>> then you have sometimes different codepoints because of colors, but
>>> sometimes not.
>>
>> Well, a big part of the reason is that human writing systems across
>> the globe are, in fact, quite an impressive mess from an engineering
>> point of view, mostly not being properly designed and all that. ;-)
>
> I know. But the Unicode wreck can't be blamed on the human writing
> system "mess". It created one completely on its own.
>
>>> It's a trainwreck, but now we're stuck with it. :(
>>
>> At least it sorta mostly kinda works for a somewhat wide range of
>> languages and scripts and you can have different scripts (latin,
>> cyrillic, arabic and others) in the same text. Which beats having to
>> figure out which code page to use for which text by quite a margin.
>> I _have_ been through the mess of "US ASCII works, good luck with
>> anything beyond that" that was text processing on e.g. MS-DOS (and
>> variants) and early Windows. And my native language (German) uses
>> essentially US-ASCII plus only a small number of letters outside of
>> that to begin with. Imagine if your native script has _no_ overlap
>> with that.
> Just because there was a problem it don't follow that Unicode was a good
> solution.
I'm not claiming it is a good solution, but it is the solution we ended up
with that reasonably covers a lot of the problem space. Given that:
- it covers a wide and very irregular problem space
- it
- it is, due to the problem scope, a design by committee
ending with a solution being bit of a mess is hardly avoidable.
It has the property of "working well enough most of the time", which is
already a big impediment to anyone spending the time, money and brains
in order to:
- come up with a New And Improved Design That Surely Has No Warts
- establish it as the new standard
Honestly: not happening.
Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-03 13:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10gpatq$jpt$3@news.misty.com> |
| In reply to | #78028 |
On 2025-11-28 22:08, Alexander Schreiber wrote: > Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote: >> Just because there was a problem it don't follow that Unicode was a good >> solution. > > I'm not claiming it is a good solution, but it is the solution we ended up > with that reasonably covers a lot of the problem space. Given that: > - it covers a wide and very irregular problem space > - it > - it is, due to the problem scope, a design by committee > ending with a solution being bit of a mess is hardly avoidable. > > It has the property of "working well enough most of the time", which is > already a big impediment to anyone spending the time, money and brains > in order to: > - come up with a New And Improved Design That Surely Has No Warts > - establish it as the new standard > > Honestly: not happening. I know that Unicode is here to stay. Said as much before. But it has introduced a whole range of problems that people tend to pretend don't exist. The most immediate one coming to my mind are all kind of scammers creating fake domains to phish stuff. Using known, trusted company names, but letters replaced by things that look visually equivalent, but actually are other characters, and then through those domains fool people to give information, such as passwords, account numbers, money, and god knows what else. A big part of the problem is that Unicode don't even seem to have known what problem is was supposed to solve. Was it about representing different characters that have different meanings? Was it about representing same characters but with different visual effects? Was it supposed to be some kind of generic system to modify characters through some clever system design? As it is, it's sortof all of these, but none of them properly. And it makes it a hellhole to deal with. But yes. Now it exists. We are not going to replace it. Johnny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-03 13:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pko50mx1q1.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #78227 |
On 2025-12-03 13:37, Johnny Billquist wrote: > On 2025-11-28 22:08, Alexander Schreiber wrote: >> Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote: >>> Just because there was a problem it don't follow that Unicode was a good >>> solution. >> >> I'm not claiming it is a good solution, but it is the solution we >> ended up >> with that reasonably covers a lot of the problem space. Given that: >> - it covers a wide and very irregular problem space >> - it >> - it is, due to the problem scope, a design by committee >> ending with a solution being bit of a mess is hardly avoidable. >> >> It has the property of "working well enough most of the time", which is >> already a big impediment to anyone spending the time, money and brains >> in order to: >> - come up with a New And Improved Design That Surely Has No Warts >> - establish it as the new standard >> >> Honestly: not happening. > > I know that Unicode is here to stay. Said as much before. But it has > introduced a whole range of problems that people tend to pretend don't > exist. The most immediate one coming to my mind are all kind of scammers > creating fake domains to phish stuff. Using known, trusted company > names, but letters replaced by things that look visually equivalent, but > actually are other characters, and then through those domains fool > people to give information, such as passwords, account numbers, money, > and god knows what else. > > A big part of the problem is that Unicode don't even seem to have known > what problem is was supposed to solve. No? The problem is that ASCII only represent the USA view of the alphabet. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-03 13:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10gpfmu$3bogo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78230 |
On 03/12/2025 12:56, Carlos E.R. wrote: e. > > No? The problem is that ASCII only represent the USA view of the alphabet. > The problem is that ASCII only represent the USA view of *ONE* alphabet. Þat is þe problem... And, worse, many writing methods do not use alphabets... -- It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house for the voice of the kingdom. Jonathan Swift
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-03 15:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <hnu50mxrc1.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #78231 |
On 2025-12-03 14:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 03/12/2025 12:56, Carlos E.R. wrote: > e. >> >> No? The problem is that ASCII only represent the USA view of the >> alphabet. >> > The problem is that ASCII only represent the USA view of *ONE* alphabet. > Þat is þe problem... > > And, worse, many writing methods do not use alphabets... Right. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-03 07:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10gpi2s$3cij2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78227 |
On 12/3/25 05:37, Johnny Billquist wrote: > On 2025-11-28 22:08, Alexander Schreiber wrote: >> Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote: >>> Just because there was a problem it don't follow that Unicode was a good >>> solution. >> >> I'm not claiming it is a good solution, but it is the solution we >> ended up >> with that reasonably covers a lot of the problem space. Given that: >> - it covers a wide and very irregular problem space >> - it >> - it is, due to the problem scope, a design by committee >> ending with a solution being bit of a mess is hardly avoidable. >> >> It has the property of "working well enough most of the time", which is >> already a big impediment to anyone spending the time, money and brains >> in order to: >> - come up with a New And Improved Design That Surely Has No Warts >> - establish it as the new standard >> >> Honestly: not happening. > > I know that Unicode is here to stay. Said as much before. But it has > introduced a whole range of problems that people tend to pretend don't > exist. The most immediate one coming to my mind are all kind of scammers > creating fake domains to phish stuff. Using known, trusted company > names, but letters replaced by things that look visually equivalent, but > actually are other characters, and then through those domains fool > people to give information, such as passwords, account numbers, money, > and god knows what else. I discovered this when I tried to set up spam filters and couldn't figure out why they weren't working. > > A big part of the problem is that Unicode don't even seem to have known > what problem is was supposed to solve. Was it about representing > different characters that have different meanings? Was it about > representing same characters but with different visual effects? Was it > supposed to be some kind of generic system to modify characters through > some clever system design? > As it is, it's sortof all of these, but none of them properly. It's supposed to be about the meanings of the characters. Capital 'A' in any font is the same Unicode character, but two characters that look identical but have different meanings are two. The biggest problem I have with any Unicode representation except (I think) UTF-32 is that a program has no way of knowing how long a string is without encoding/decoding it. Given a string of characters in some codepage, how many bytes does it occupy when converted to UTF-8? Given a UTF-8 character string, how many character positions does it occupy, say, for example, when displayed on a screen? > > And it makes it a hellhole to deal with. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-06 16:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87345nbokq.fsf@eder.anydns.info> |
| In reply to | #78232 |
On Mi 03 Dez 2025 at 07:39, Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: > On 12/3/25 05:37, Johnny Billquist wrote: > > The biggest problem I have with any Unicode representation except (I think) > UTF-32 is that a program has no way of knowing how long a string is without > encoding/decoding it. UTF-32 doesn't help you there either, because there are combining characters. 'Andreas -- ceterum censeo redmondinem esse delendam
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-13 08:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10hj82r$3qr8r$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78232 |
On Wed, 3 Dec 2025 07:39:24 -0700, Peter Flass wrote: > The biggest problem I have with any Unicode representation except (I > think) UTF-32 is that a program has no way of knowing how long a > string is without encoding/decoding it. How long in codepoints? Easy to determine. How long in characters/graphemes? Not so easy in general. Is there any other (real or hypothetical) encoding that would have made this possible? I don’t think so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-15 10:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10hoktv$o38$1@news.misty.com> |
| In reply to | #78232 |
On 2025-12-03 15:39, Peter Flass wrote: > On 12/3/25 05:37, Johnny Billquist wrote: >> On 2025-11-28 22:08, Alexander Schreiber wrote: >>> Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote: >>>> Just because there was a problem it don't follow that Unicode was a >>>> good >>>> solution. >>> >>> I'm not claiming it is a good solution, but it is the solution we >>> ended up >>> with that reasonably covers a lot of the problem space. Given that: >>> - it covers a wide and very irregular problem space >>> - it >>> - it is, due to the problem scope, a design by committee >>> ending with a solution being bit of a mess is hardly avoidable. >>> >>> It has the property of "working well enough most of the time", which is >>> already a big impediment to anyone spending the time, money and brains >>> in order to: >>> - come up with a New And Improved Design That Surely Has No Warts >>> - establish it as the new standard >>> >>> Honestly: not happening. >> >> I know that Unicode is here to stay. Said as much before. But it has >> introduced a whole range of problems that people tend to pretend don't >> exist. The most immediate one coming to my mind are all kind of >> scammers creating fake domains to phish stuff. Using known, trusted >> company names, but letters replaced by things that look visually >> equivalent, but actually are other characters, and then through those >> domains fool people to give information, such as passwords, account >> numbers, money, and god knows what else. > > I discovered this when I tried to set up spam filters and couldn't > figure out why they weren't working. Yeah. It's nasty... >> A big part of the problem is that Unicode don't even seem to have >> known what problem is was supposed to solve. Was it about representing >> different characters that have different meanings? Was it about >> representing same characters but with different visual effects? Was it >> supposed to be some kind of generic system to modify characters >> through some clever system design? >> As it is, it's sortof all of these, but none of them properly. > > It's supposed to be about the meanings of the characters. Capital 'A' in > any font is the same Unicode character, but two characters that look > identical but have different meanings are two. Except it isn't. You have several codepoints for capital 'A'. How about U+1D00 - LATIN LETTER SMALL CAPITAL A ? Or U+ff21 - FULLWIDTH LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A And then you have the ridiculous mathematical symbol 'A', which Unicode have defined in normal, italic, bold, italic+bold, script, script bold, script italic, script italic bold... And it goes on with fraktur versions, sans-serif versions, monospace versions. (U+1D400 for a start down that rabbit hole...) Heck, you even have U+1F110 - PARENTHESIZED LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A. So a latin capital A with parenthesises around it. That needed its own code point??? So, you can see that even some font selections creeped in to Unicode, as well as rendering of things in bold or italic. And all kind of other crazy variants and details. > The biggest problem I have with any Unicode representation except (I > think) UTF-32 is that a program has no way of knowing how long a string > is without encoding/decoding it. Given a string of characters in some > codepage, how many bytes does it occupy when converted to UTF-8? Given a > UTF-8 character string, how many character positions does it occupy, > say, for example, when displayed on a screen? True. However, that has nothing to do with Unicode as such, but the UTF-8 encoding of it. Johnny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-16 02:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10hqfll$2g7ff$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #79144 |
In alt.folklore.computers Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote:
<snip>
>> The biggest problem I have with any Unicode representation except (I
>> think) UTF-32 is that a program has no way of knowing how long a string
>> is without encoding/decoding it. Given a string of characters in some
>> codepage, how many bytes does it occupy when converted to UTF-8? Given a
>> UTF-8 character string, how many character positions does it occupy,
>> say, for example, when displayed on a screen?
>
> True. However, that has nothing to do with Unicode as such, but the
> UTF-8 encoding of it.
Unicode has combining "characters", so to know how many "real"
character you have you need to combine. IIUC for Korean Hangul
character can be buit from 3 separate pieces, each taking one code
point, but also there are "precomposed" combinations taking a
single code point. My reading of description is that 3 pieces
version and precomposed one are supposed to display the same.
There are also code point for ligatures, for most puproses ligature
fi' counts as two characters, but is a single code point. Terminal
may display it in a single cell, but arguably for noice monspaced
display one should expand ligatures. For display we have single
cell characters and double width one, so to know width one needs
at least table giving width of codepoint and add widths of all
codepoints.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-16 02:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10hqhhi$2c19v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #79251 |
On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 02:20:39 -0000 (UTC), Waldek Hebisch wrote: > Unicode has combining "characters" ... I think they feel the term “character” is ambiguous, so they use “grapheme” instead. <https://web.archive.org/web/20251021141102/http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-16 11:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10hrh7j$2n4rb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #79251 |
On 2025-12-16, Waldek Hebisch wrote: > In alt.folklore.computers Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote: > <snip> >>> The biggest problem I have with any Unicode representation except (I >>> think) UTF-32 is that a program has no way of knowing how long a string >>> is without encoding/decoding it. Given a string of characters in some >>> codepage, how many bytes does it occupy when converted to UTF-8? Given a >>> UTF-8 character string, how many character positions does it occupy, >>> say, for example, when displayed on a screen? >> >> True. However, that has nothing to do with Unicode as such, but the >> UTF-8 encoding of it. > > Unicode has combining "characters", so to know how many "real" > character you have you need to combine. IIUC for Korean Hangul > character can be buit from 3 separate pieces, each taking one code > point, but also there are "precomposed" combinations taking a > single code point. My reading of description is that 3 pieces > version and precomposed one are supposed to display the same. > > There are also code point for ligatures, for most puproses ligature > fi' counts as two characters, but is a single code point. Terminal > may display it in a single cell, but arguably for noice monspaced > display one should expand ligatures. For display we have single > cell characters and double width one, so to know width one needs > at least table giving width of codepoint and add widths of all > codepoints. One question here, why should there be a codepoint for fi in UCS? How did this come to be? It does look like the kind of choice that just creates an accessibility issue (fi as separate letters will display better, and whatever is rendering can choose to deploy ligatures, while fi as noted is two chars in a single glyph, and it not working well in monospaced display does show precisely the issue with it). But maybe there is some reasoning or history here I'm overlooking? Or was this because some other existing charset had ligatures? -- Nuno Silva This message composed without being able to see fi, just trusting that it's there :-P Yes, it's a font issue. No, I'm not planning on addressing that now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-16 17:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <wwvqzsuz5lh.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #79281 |
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> writes: > On 2025-12-16, Waldek Hebisch wrote: >> There are also code point for ligatures, for most puproses ligature >> fi' counts as two characters, but is a single code point. Terminal >> may display it in a single cell, but arguably for noice monspaced >> display one should expand ligatures. For display we have single cell >> characters and double width one, so to know width one needs at least >> table giving width of codepoint and add widths of all codepoints. > > One question here, why should there be a codepoint for fi in UCS? How did > this come to be? Round trip compatibility with legacy encodings, specifically Mac OS Roman. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-17 10:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10httos$7mf$2@news.misty.com> |
| In reply to | #79251 |
On 2025-12-16 03:20, Waldek Hebisch wrote: > In alt.folklore.computers Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote: > <snip> >>> The biggest problem I have with any Unicode representation except (I >>> think) UTF-32 is that a program has no way of knowing how long a string >>> is without encoding/decoding it. Given a string of characters in some >>> codepage, how many bytes does it occupy when converted to UTF-8? Given a >>> UTF-8 character string, how many character positions does it occupy, >>> say, for example, when displayed on a screen? >> >> True. However, that has nothing to do with Unicode as such, but the >> UTF-8 encoding of it. > > Unicode has combining "characters", so to know how many "real" > character you have you need to combine. IIUC for Korean Hangul > character can be buit from 3 separate pieces, each taking one code > point, but also there are "precomposed" combinations taking a > single code point. My reading of description is that 3 pieces > version and precomposed one are supposed to display the same. > > There are also code point for ligatures, for most puproses ligature > fi' counts as two characters, but is a single code point. Terminal > may display it in a single cell, but arguably for noice monspaced > display one should expand ligatures. For display we have single > cell characters and double width one, so to know width one needs > at least table giving width of codepoint and add widths of all > codepoints. Excellent points. Johnny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-16 23:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3d391mxgfc.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #79144 |
On 2025-12-15 10:38, Johnny Billquist wrote: > On 2025-12-03 15:39, Peter Flass wrote: >> On 12/3/25 05:37, Johnny Billquist wrote: >>> On 2025-11-28 22:08, Alexander Schreiber wrote: >>> A big part of the problem is that Unicode don't even seem to have >>> known what problem is was supposed to solve. Was it about >>> representing different characters that have different meanings? Was >>> it about representing same characters but with different visual >>> effects? Was it supposed to be some kind of generic system to modify >>> characters through some clever system design? >>> As it is, it's sortof all of these, but none of them properly. >> >> It's supposed to be about the meanings of the characters. Capital 'A' >> in any font is the same Unicode character, but two characters that >> look identical but have different meanings are two. > > Except it isn't. You have several codepoints for capital 'A'. > How about U+1D00 - LATIN LETTER SMALL CAPITAL A ? > Or U+ff21 - FULLWIDTH LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A > > And then you have the ridiculous mathematical symbol 'A', which Unicode > have defined in normal, italic, bold, italic+bold, script, script bold, > script italic, script italic bold... And it goes on with fraktur > versions, sans-serif versions, monospace versions. (U+1D400 for a start > down that rabbit hole...) > > Heck, you even have U+1F110 - PARENTHESIZED LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A. > So a latin capital A with parenthesises around it. That needed its own > code point??? > > So, you can see that even some font selections creeped in to Unicode, as > well as rendering of things in bold or italic. And all kind of other > crazy variants and details. Searching for a "similar or equivalent" string must be a bitch. ... -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-17 01:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10ht279$3642o$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #79324 |
On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 23:34:43 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-12-15 10:38, Johnny Billquist wrote: >> >> So, you can see that even some font selections creeped in to Unicode, >> as well as rendering of things in bold or italic. And all kind of other >> crazy variants and details. > > Searching for a "similar or equivalent" string must be a bitch. I think Unicode offers lots of tables of information specifically to make this sort of thing easier to manage. NamesList.txt is a particularly handy one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Diego Garcia <dg@linux.rocks> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-03 14:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan$326ad$e8cd42ad$b7f0de6c$51dbd90d@linux.rocks> |
| In reply to | #78227 |
On Wed, 3 Dec 2025 13:37:13 +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote: > > I know that Unicode is here to stay. Said as much before. But it has > introduced a whole range of problems that people tend to pretend don't > exist. The most immediate one coming to my mind are all kind of scammers > creating fake domains to phish stuff. Using known, trusted company > names, but letters replaced by things that look visually equivalent, but > actually are other characters, and then through those domains fool > people to give information, such as passwords, account numbers, money, > and god knows what else. > That's not actually a problem. Punycode has been developed to deal with it. All software should now be offering a dual display of all FQDNs as both Unicode and Punycode.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-04 07:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <eli$2512040139@qaz.wtf> |
| In reply to | #78227 |
In comp.os.linux.misc, Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote: > I know that Unicode is here to stay. Said as much before. But it has > introduced a whole range of problems that people tend to pretend don't > exist. The most immediate one coming to my mind are all kind of scammers > creating fake domains to phish stuff. Using known, trusted company > names, but letters replaced by things that look visually equivalent, but > actually are other characters, and then through those domains fool > people to give information, such as passwords, account numbers, money, > and god knows what else. As opposed to scammers posting as J0HNNY BILLQUIST, or Johnny Bi11quist, or JOHNNY BILLQUlST in ordinary ASCII. More alphabets compound the problem, sure, but it was always there. > A big part of the problem is that Unicode don't even seem to have known > what problem is was supposed to solve. Was it about representing > different characters that have different meanings? Was it about > representing same characters but with different visual effects? Was it > supposed to be some kind of generic system to modify characters through > some clever system design? It's pretty much never about "visual effects" although there are semantic differences to some visually similar characters. Math is a big offender in wanting ℤ meaning something different than Z or 𝐙. But you could argue that Japanese style "fullwidth" Ｚ is a visual effect. I would say the problem Unicode is trying to solve, albeit with some inconsistency, is the communication of all written languages in a standardized system of encoding. There are huge problems in that many written languages have implicit presentation rules based on context. The fullwidth Roman alphaphet, for example, is there because English letters in Japanese text are supposed to be the same size to fit the grid of the surrounding material. At different stages Unicode has solved this problem in different ways. More recently there has been a trend towards encoding things with combining characters (backspace overstrike style in the old manual typewriter days) and with ligatures of a sort. Flags being represented as a pair of "regional indicator" letters, where the letters are the same country codes used in DNS, is an example of that. Elijah ------ "Weird AI != Weird Al" being a confusable forming some recent jokes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-05 20:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <69334624$0$11430$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #78273 |
Le 04-12-2025, Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> a écrit : > In comp.os.linux.misc, Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote: >> I know that Unicode is here to stay. Said as much before. But it has >> introduced a whole range of problems that people tend to pretend don't >> exist. The most immediate one coming to my mind are all kind of scammers >> creating fake domains to phish stuff. Using known, trusted company >> names, but letters replaced by things that look visually equivalent, but >> actually are other characters, and then through those domains fool >> people to give information, such as passwords, account numbers, money, >> and god knows what else. > > As opposed to scammers posting as J0HNNY BILLQUIST, or Johnny Bi11quist, > or JOHNNY BILLQUlST in ordinary ASCII. More alphabets compound the > problem, sure, but it was always there. Agreed. I see only one issue clearly limited to UTF-8. In most of the actual writing systems the characters are displayed from left to right, others from right to left and, to my knowledge only old scripts, in boustrophedon. And UTF-8 takes care of it, but not every tool takes care of it the same way. The issue being writing code in English and comments in Arabic on the same line. Poorly done, it just doesn't compile and it's not an issue. But if an attacker want to use it, your text editor may make you believe the code is commented when the compiler doesn't know it's compiled. And some mischievous code can be executed when you believe it's commented. >> A big part of the problem is that Unicode don't even seem to have known >> what problem is was supposed to solve. Was it about representing >> different characters that have different meanings? Was it about >> representing same characters but with different visual effects? Was it >> supposed to be some kind of generic system to modify characters through >> some clever system design? > > It's pretty much never about "visual effects" although there are semantic > differences to some visually similar characters. Math is a big offender > in wanting ℤ meaning something different than Z or 𝐙. But you could argue > that Japanese style "fullwidth" Ｚ is a visual effect. Of course, the rendering isn't considered by the encoding. It's the purpose of the font. I choose fonts which doesn't make me think about the character written. The 0 and O doesn't have to be similar. Like 1 and l and I can be easily differentiated. If it's not the case on your computer and if that matters, change the font, not the encoding. > I would say the problem Unicode is trying to solve, albeit with some > inconsistency, is the communication of all written languages in a > standardized system of encoding. Yes. And it wasn't a small thing to solve considering the way too limited ASCII was everywhere. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 12 [1] 2 3 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web