Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #26569 > unrolled thread

<noscript> problem

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  <noscript> problem "Mel Smith" <syntel@cox.net> - 2015-01-13 09:17 -0700
    Re: <noscript> problem Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-01-13 16:58 +0000
      Re: <noscript> problem "Mel Smith" <syntel@cox.net> - 2015-01-13 13:15 -0700
        Re: <noscript> problem "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2015-01-13 22:39 +0200
          Re: <noscript> problem "Mel Smith" <syntel@cox.net> - 2015-01-13 17:48 -0700
            Re: <noscript> problem Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2015-01-14 09:30 -0200
              Re: <noscript> problem Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-01-14 12:07 +0000
                Re: <noscript> problem Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2015-01-14 10:50 -0200
                  Re: <noscript> problem Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-01-14 15:53 +0100
    Re: <noscript> problem "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2015-01-13 18:12 +0100
      Re: <noscript> problem "Mel Smith" <syntel@cox.net> - 2015-01-13 13:19 -0700
    Re: <noscript> problem Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2015-01-13 15:18 -0200
    Re: <noscript> problem "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2015-01-13 19:30 +0200
      Re: <noscript> problem Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-01-14 15:19 +0100
        Re: <noscript> problem "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2015-01-14 17:13 +0200
    Re: <noscript> problem Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-01-13 18:48 +0100
      Re: <noscript> problem "Mel Smith" <syntel@cox.net> - 2015-01-13 11:58 -0700
      Re: <noscript> problem John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2015-01-14 14:47 +0000
        Re: <noscript> problem Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-01-15 14:49 +0100
          Re: <noscript> problem Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-01-15 15:31 +0000
            Re: <noscript> problem Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-01-15 17:30 +0100
              Re: <noscript> problem Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-01-15 16:38 +0000
                Re: <noscript> problem Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-01-15 18:31 +0100
                  Re: <noscript> problem Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-01-15 17:35 +0000
                  Re: <noscript> problem John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2015-01-15 20:00 +0000
                    Re: <noscript> problem Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-01-15 22:19 +0100
                      Re: <noscript> problem John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2015-01-16 09:23 +0000
                        Re: <noscript> problem Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-01-17 12:23 +0100
                          Re: <noscript> problem John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2015-01-17 20:09 +0000
                            Re: <noscript> problem Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-01-17 22:54 +0100
                              Re: <noscript> problem John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2015-01-18 12:16 +0000
                                Re: <noscript> problem Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-01-18 17:26 +0100
                                  Re: <noscript> problem Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-01-18 16:50 +0000
                                  Re: <noscript> problem John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2015-01-19 10:17 +0000
                                    Re: <noscript> problem Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-01-19 10:40 +0000
          Re: <noscript> problem John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2015-01-15 19:53 +0000
            Re: <noscript> problem Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-01-15 22:17 +0100
              Re: <noscript> problem John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2015-01-16 09:59 +0000
                Re: <noscript> problem Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-01-17 13:02 +0100
                  Re: <noscript> problem John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2015-01-18 16:10 +0000
                    Re: <noscript> problem Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-01-19 15:10 +0100
                      Re: <noscript> problem John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2015-01-20 10:24 +0000
                        Re: <noscript> problem Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-01-20 12:09 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#26594

Tim Streater wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' wrote:
>> And *please* skip the attribution novel.
> 
> Please learn to use a proper attribution. To put "John Harris wrote:"is
> entirely inadequate.

Why?

And why do you quote text you are not referring to?

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26595

In article <2420110.cANBj9i1JB@PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars'
Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>Tim Streater wrote:
>
>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' wrote:
>>> And *please* skip the attribution novel.
>> 
>> Please learn to use a proper attribution. To put "John Harris wrote:"is
>> entirely inadequate.
>
>Why?

Because I say so, that's why.

-- 
"Once you adopt the unix paradigm, the variants cease to be a problem - you
bitch, of course, but that's because bitching is fun, unlike M$ OS's, where 
bitching is required to keep your head from exploding." - S Stremler in afc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26596

Tim Streater wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>> Tim Streater wrote:
>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' wrote:
>>>> And *please* skip the attribution novel. 
>>> Please learn to use a proper attribution. To put "John Harris wrote:"is
>>> entirely inadequate.
>> Why?
> 
> Because I say so, that's why.

Insufficient.

It would appear that you are getting at that I did not provide a rationale 
for my request.  Apparently then, you are unaware that there is a common 
rationale for keeping attribution lines short.  Therefore, I did not give 
one (again).

There is a standing recommendation in Usenet to keep lines to at most 80 
columns (this was once only because of terminal display width, but is still 
maintained for readability of text, with few exceptions).  As a result, 
attributions that are longer than that require more than one line, 
especially when quoted.  But attributions that are longer than one line make 
it harder to read an article; they *bloat* articles, especially with several 
quotation levels (after all, it is the content of the article that matters 
most, not the attribution).

The advantage of that is minimal, because, for example, the Message IDs of a 
posting’s precursors are usually contained in the “References” header field 
of the posting (and decent user agents provide a one-click solution to get 
to it, or fetch it from an archive if expired).  If that field is 
unavailable, like in an insufficiently programmed archive, the precursor is 
usually available; and if the precursor is unavailable then, the Message ID 
is irrelevant (Message IDs are supposed to be unique for a period of two 
years only).  A case could be made for including the date, but then again if 
the precursor is unavailable, its injection date is mostly irrelevant, too.

What really matters is who wrote what, and that should be seen at a glance.

(Formerly, the e-mail address of the author was included for identification, 
but that reason also has disappeared as the “From” address can no longer be 
considered the primary contact address – instead, a spam-eating, seldom-read 
mailbox is recommended –, and the “Reply-To” address should not be posted in 
the message body *because* it is so much easier to harvest addresses from 
there (primarily, due to insecure Web gateways.)

<https://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote1.html#ss1.2>

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26597

In article <2060932.5UeBkQ9cql@PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars'
Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>Tim Streater wrote:
>
>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>>> Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' wrote:
>>>>> And *please* skip the attribution novel. 
>>>> Please learn to use a proper attribution. To put "John Harris wrote:"is
>>>> entirely inadequate.
>>> Why?
>> 
>> Because I say so, that's why.
>
>Insufficient.

[attribution novel deleted unread]

Sufficient for me.

-- 
HAL 9000:    Dave.  Put down those Windows disks.  Dave.  DAVE!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26600

On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 18:31:32 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>Tim Streater wrote:
>
>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>>> Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' wrote:
>>>>> And *please* skip the attribution novel. 
>>>> Please learn to use a proper attribution. To put "John Harris wrote:"is
>>>> entirely inadequate.
>>> Why?
>> 
>> Because I say so, that's why.
>
>Insufficient.
>
>It would appear that you are getting at that I did not provide a rationale 
>for my request.  Apparently then, you are unaware that there is a common 
>rationale for keeping attribution lines short.  Therefore, I did not give 
>one (again).
  <snip>

And it has been demonstrated here that that 'rationale' is flawed. It
can fall flat on its face as I have demonstrated in earlier articles.
The 'rationale' makes an assumption that simply isn't true.

  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26602

John Harris wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>> Tim Streater wrote:
>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>>>> Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' wrote:
>>>>>> And *please* skip the attribution novel.
>>>>> Please learn to use a proper attribution. To put "John Harris
>>>>> wrote:"is entirely inadequate.
>>>> Why? 
>>> Because I say so, that's why.
>> Insufficient.
>>
>> It would appear that you are getting at that I did not provide a 
>> rationale for my request.  Apparently then, you are unaware that there is 
>> a common rationale for keeping attribution lines short.  Therefore, I did 
>> not give one (again).
>   <snip>
> 
> And it has been demonstrated here that that 'rationale' is flawed. It
> can fall flat on its face as I have demonstrated in earlier articles.

Name them.

> The 'rationale' makes an assumption that simply isn't true.

What is the assumption made that simply is not true IYHO?

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26604

On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:19:48 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>John Harris wrote:
>
>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>>> Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> [?] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [?] wrote:
>>>>> Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>>> [?] Thomas 'PointedEars' wrote:
>>>>>>> And *please* skip the attribution novel.
>>>>>> Please learn to use a proper attribution. To put "John Harris
>>>>>> wrote:"is entirely inadequate.
>>>>> Why? 
>>>> Because I say so, that's why.
>>> Insufficient.
>>>
>>> It would appear that you are getting at that I did not provide a 
>>> rationale for my request.  Apparently then, you are unaware that there is 
>>> a common rationale for keeping attribution lines short.  Therefore, I did 
>>> not give one (again).
>>   <snip>
>> 
>> And it has been demonstrated here that that 'rationale' is flawed. It
>> can fall flat on its face as I have demonstrated in earlier articles.
>
>Name them.

Repeated below.


>> The 'rationale' makes an assumption that simply isn't true.
>
>What is the assumption made that simply is not true IYHO?

As Dr Johnson famously said, I refute it thus :-

Thomas Lahn said: 
> […]


  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26606

John Harris wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>> John Harris wrote:
>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>>>> It would appear that you are getting at that I did not provide a
>>>> rationale for my request.  Apparently then, you are unaware that there
>>>> is a common rationale for keeping attribution lines short.  Therefore, 
>>>> I did not give one (again).
>>> 
>>> And it has been demonstrated here that that 'rationale' is flawed. It
>>> can fall flat on its face as I have demonstrated in earlier articles.
>> Name them.
> 
> Repeated below.

If that is all you have to say, I rest my case.

>>> The 'rationale' makes an assumption that simply isn't true.
>>What is the assumption made that simply is not true IYHO?
> 
> As Dr Johnson famously said, I refute it thus :-
> 
> Thomas Lahn said:
>> […]

“wrote” is more commonly used than “said”, partially by newsreader defaults.  
But where is the refutation?

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26610

On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 12:23:09 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>John Harris wrote:
>
>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>>> John Harris wrote:
>>>> [?] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [?] wrote:
>>>>> It would appear that you are getting at that I did not provide a
>>>>> rationale for my request.  Apparently then, you are unaware that there
>>>>> is a common rationale for keeping attribution lines short.  Therefore, 
>>>>> I did not give one (again).
>>>> 
>>>> And it has been demonstrated here that that 'rationale' is flawed. It
>>>> can fall flat on its face as I have demonstrated in earlier articles.
>>> Name them.
>> 
>> Repeated below.
>
>If that is all you have to say, I rest my case.
>
>>>> The 'rationale' makes an assumption that simply isn't true.
>>>What is the assumption made that simply is not true IYHO?
>> 
>> As Dr Johnson famously said, I refute it thus :-
>> 
>> Thomas Lahn said:
>>> [?]

Your quoting machinery has gone wrong. It's inserted a random
character.


>wrote” is more commonly used than “said”, partially by newsreader defaults.  
>But where is the refutation?

Dr Johnson assumed his audience was intelligent enough to work it out
without help. 

So here is a detailed explanation. You assert that the Message ID for
the quoted text is in the quoting article's headers. Here is an
example where it clearly isn't. This destroys your case.

  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26611

John Harris wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>> John Harris wrote:
>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>>>> John Harris wrote:
>>>>> The 'rationale' makes an assumption that simply isn't true.
>>>> What is the assumption made that simply is not true IYHO?
>>> 
>>> As Dr Johnson famously said, I refute it thus :-
>>> 
>>> Thomas Lahn said:
>>>> [?]
> 
> Your quoting machinery has gone wrong. It's inserted a random
> character.

No, the character I posted was U+2026 HORIZONTAL ELLIPSIS, as it had been in 
the/your original (where it was Windows-1252-encoded as 0x85, and falsely 
declared ISO-8859-1-encoded in the “Content-Type” header field [1]).  The 
character that I posted was properly UTF-8-encoded, and UTF-8 was properly 
declared in the “Content-Type” header field of my follow-up.

Given that your “posting machinery” (newsreader) declared the wrong 
character encoding, my "quoting machinery" (newsreader) did a really good 
job at guessing the right one, and my "posting machinery" (newsreader) at 
finding an equivalent character and suitable character encoding.

Your "reading machinery" (newsreader) then failed at decoding it.

>> wrote” is more commonly used than “said”, partially by newsreader
>> defaults. But where is the refutation?
> 
> Dr Johnson assumed his audience was intelligent enough to work it out
> without help.

That is either an Historian’s fallacy or an Intentionality fallacy, and 
certainly an Ad hominem fallacy. [2]

> So here is a detailed explanation. You assert that the Message ID for
> the quoted text is in the quoting article's headers. Here is an
> example where it clearly isn't. This destroys your case.

That argument is fallacious, too.  The fallacy there is probably a “faulty 
generalization”, probably the “cherry picking” or the “hasty generalization” 
subtype. [2]

Because in your argument you are ignoring the context.  Quotations need to 
be attributed only as necessary in the context in which they are used.

If you are quoting from the same sub-thread of a discussion, which is the 
default, it is usually not necessary (see below) to provide the Message IDs 
or other identifying information – except the name of the author – in the 
message body because the Message IDs are in the article’s _header_ (which is 
used by several newsreaders – as apparent from screenshots, not yours –, for 
a one-click solution to look up the referenced article).

If instead you are quoting a source not from the same sub-thread, it is 
necessary to provide identifying information in order to make clear to the 
reader that you did not from the same sub-thread; that information could be 
one or several of: “Subject” header field value, name and (“From”) address 
of the author, date of injection, and Message ID (the list may not be 
exhaustive).

Also, in the unusual case that you want to remind someone of something that 
had been said before in the same sub-thread, but was not quoted by the 
author(s) of the precursor(s), it may be necessary to provide identifying 
information with it the same as if you quoted text from outside the same 
thread.  In particular, it can be less efficient to reconstruct the 
attribution lines, related quotations, and the number of default quotation 
characters necessary to return the quoted text to its context than to use 
the quotation character usually reserved for third-party quotations (“|”) 
and provide the identifying information with the so-marked quotation (BTDT).

_________
[1] 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Latin_character_sets_(computing)#Comparison_table>
[2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies>
-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26612

On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 22:54:01 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>John Harris wrote:
>
>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>>> John Harris wrote:
>>>> [?] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [?] wrote:
>>>>> John Harris wrote:
>>>>>> The 'rationale' makes an assumption that simply isn't true.
>>>>> What is the assumption made that simply is not true IYHO?
>>>> 
>>>> As Dr Johnson famously said, I refute it thus :-
>>>> 
>>>> Thomas Lahn said:
>>>>> [?]
>> 
>> Your quoting machinery has gone wrong. It's inserted a random
>> character.
>
>No,
 <snip>

You have the evidence; you're best placed to write to Forte.

As Usenet is not restricted to the Internet, using characters that
won't survive passage through a 7-bit channel is antisocial.


>>>But where is the refutation?
>> 
>> Dr Johnson assumed his audience was intelligent enough to work it out
>> without help.
>
>That is either an Historian’s fallacy or an Intentionality fallacy, and 
>certainly an Ad hominem fallacy. [2]

It is certainly an implied Ad Hominem remark, but as it is not part of
the argument it can't possibly be a fallacy.


>> So here is a detailed explanation. You assert that the Message ID for
>> the quoted text is in the quoting article's headers. Here is an
>> example where it clearly isn't. This destroys your case.
>
>That argument is fallacious, too.  The fallacy there is probably a “faulty 
>generalization”, probably the “cherry picking” or the “hasty generalization” 
>subtype. [2]

When you say that something is *always* true you have to accept that
one example where it isn't true destroys the 'always'. So far you've
never been known to accept that.

Also, pointing out an exception is not any kind of generalisation, let
alone a fallacious one.

I suppose you could say it's cherry picking : picking out an awkward
case as a test of a generalisation. That should be a familiar part of
your job as a creator of technical products.


>Because in your argument you are ignoring the context.
  <snip>  

You didn't restrict your dogmatic statement to any context smaller
than a Usenet article.


  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26614

John Harris wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> John Harris wrote:
>>> Your quoting machinery has gone wrong. It's inserted a random
>>> character.
>>
>>No,
>  <snip>
> 
> You have the evidence; you're best placed to write to Forte.

On the contrary.  You have the evidence, too, and *you* are their paying 
customer.

> As Usenet is not restricted to the Internet, using characters that
> won't survive passage through a 7-bit channel is antisocial.

Nonsense.  Put politely, you are out of touch.
 
> It is certainly an implied Ad Hominem remark, but as it is not part of
> the argument it can't possibly be a fallacy.

Ex falso quodlibet.  It *was* part of an argument.

>>> So here is a detailed explanation. You assert that the Message ID for
>>> the quoted text is in the quoting article's headers. Here is an
>>> example where it clearly isn't. This destroys your case.
>> That argument is fallacious, too.  The fallacy there is probably a 
>> “faulty generalization”, probably the “cherry picking” or the “hasty
>> generalization” subtype. [2]
> 
> When you say that something is *always* true you have to accept that
> one example where it isn't true destroys the 'always'.

Another fallacy.  I did not say that it was always true.

I think truth has been graciously served by now.  This is not a newsgroup 
about how to post to Usenet.  The rest of your misconceptions should be 
clarified via private e-mail.

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26615

In article <2201913.saoTX8E1po@PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars'
Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>This is not a newsgroup about how to post to Usenet.

Thanks for clarifying that. We can all remind you of it next time you
whinge about attributions, or any other matter related to posting.

-- 
"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of
those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26618

On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 17:26:36 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>John Harris wrote:
>
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> John Harris wrote:
  <snip>

>> As Usenet is not restricted to the Internet, using characters that
>> won't survive passage through a 7-bit channel is antisocial.
>
>Nonsense.  Put politely, you are out of touch.

Ah, the Jquery argument. If it's old and inconvenient then it
shouldn't be supported.


>> It is certainly an implied Ad Hominem remark, but as it is not part of
>> the argument it can't possibly be a fallacy.
>
>Ex falso quodlibet.  It *was* part of an argument.
  <snip>

No it wasn't. It was a justification for an argument in greater
detail.


>> When you say that something is *always* true you have to accept that
>> one example where it isn't true destroys the 'always'.
>
>Another fallacy.  I did not say that it was always true.
  <snip>

What Thomas Lahn said :
>No space is written before sentence-ending marks in Germanic languages like 
>English.

What I replied :
>What Thomas means is that there is usually no space, but not always.

What Thomas Lahn replied :
>Name one instance where it is orthographically correct in English to write a 
>space before a sentence-ending mark.

I.E. You did say it's always true, using other words to say it.


>This is not a newsgroup 
>about how to post to Usenet.
  <snip>

Noted for future use.


  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26620

In article <n9mpbahtg3ktnqi0ivfea8of4hep612nlt@4ax.com>, John Harris
<niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 17:26:36 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
><PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>>This is not a newsgroup about how to post to Usenet.
>  <snip>
>
>Noted for future use.

Indeed. Perhaps PointyHead will now finally understand that he does not
own this newsgroup (or any other).

-- 
"... you must remember that if you're trying to propagate a creed of 
 poverty, gentleness and tolerance,  you need a very rich, powerful,
 authoritarian organisation to do it."             - Vice-Pope Eric

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26599

On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 14:49:56 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>John Harris wrote:
>
>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> No space is written before sentence-ending marks in Germanic languages
>>> like English.
>> 
>> What Thomas means is that there is usually no space, but not always.
>
>Name one instance where it is orthographically correct in English to write a 
>space before a sentence-ending mark.
  <snip>

Have you not heard of kerning? Even Microsoft Word has heard of it,
though not in the so-called Help.

As an example, there are books published by Victor Gollancz Ltd, a
reputable publisher, that have a longer gap in front of ? and !. It
isn't a space character, but in plain ASCII text there isn't any other
choice.

  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26601

John Harris wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>> John Harris wrote:
>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> No space is written before sentence-ending marks in Germanic languages
>>>> like English.
>>> What Thomas means is that there is usually no space, but not always.
>>
>> Name one instance where it is orthographically correct in English to 
>> write a space before a sentence-ending mark.
>   <snip>
> 
> Have you not heard of kerning? Even Microsoft Word has heard of it,
> though not in the so-called Help.

Kerning has nothing to do with inserting a space character of any kind.

> As an example, there are books published by Victor Gollancz Ltd, a
> reputable publisher, that have a longer gap in front of ? and !. It
> isn't a space character, but in plain ASCII text there isn't any other
> choice.

Irrelevant evidence caused to be cited by fallacy, followed by fallacy.

With plain "ASCII" text it is the designer of the (fixed-width) font that 
must, with kerning, make sure that there is a *spacing* between the glyphs 
*even though* the characters are used in orthographic fashion, and the 
author of a text should choose a font for display that has proper kerning to 
ease readability (at least for them).  They must _not_ insert space 
characters of any kind contrary to orthography¹.

The argument you presented is particularly ridiculous with regard to Network 
News because the reader of a posting need not use the same font for display 
as its author.

________
¹  The problem in this case could be that this is different in Romance
   languages, most notably in French where you *must* write the (no-break)
   space before the sentence-ending mark.
-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26605

On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:17:38 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>John Harris wrote:
>
>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>>> John Harris wrote:
>>>> [?] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> No space is written before sentence-ending marks in Germanic languages
>>>>> like English.
>>>> What Thomas means is that there is usually no space, but not always.
>>>
>>> Name one instance where it is orthographically correct in English to 
>>> write a space before a sentence-ending mark.
>>   <snip>
>> 
>> Have you not heard of kerning? Even Microsoft Word has heard of it,
>> though not in the so-called Help.
>
>Kerning has nothing to do with inserting a space character of any kind.

Positive kerning has *everything* to with inserting white space, using
whatever technology is available.


>> As an example, there are books published by Victor Gollancz Ltd, a
>> reputable publisher, that have a longer gap in front of ? and !. It
>> isn't a space character, but in plain ASCII text there isn't any other
>> choice.
>
>Irrelevant evidence 

You say *never*; I give an example of *not never*. How can that be
irrelevant ?


>caused to be cited by fallacy, 

'cited by fallacy' does not make sense. It is  meaningless.


>followed by fallacy.
>
>With plain "ASCII" text it is the designer of the (fixed-width) font that 
>must, with kerning, make sure that there is a *spacing* between the glyphs 
>*even though* the characters are used in orthographic fashion, 

Some font designers design for paper prints, not for screens with a
lower resolution.


>and the 
>author of a text should choose a font for display that has proper kerning to 
>ease readability (at least for them).  They must _not_ insert space 
>characters of any kind contrary to orthography¹.
  <snip>

No. The author can change the kerning for particular characters when
using a desktop publishing tool such as Framemaker or Word 2. (Both
have character styles).

Incidentally, the Oxford Dictionary of English says that 'orthography'
is the 'conventional spelling system of a language'. So does the
Cambridge online dictionary.


  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26608

John Harris wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>> John Harris wrote:
>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>> Kerning has nothing to do with inserting a space character of any kind.
> 
> Positive kerning has *everything* to with inserting white space, using
> whatever technology is available.

Utter nonsense.

>>> As an example, there are books published by Victor Gollancz Ltd, a
>>> reputable publisher, that have a longer gap in front of ? and !. It
>>> isn't a space character, but in plain ASCII text there isn't any other
>>> choice.
>> Irrelevant evidence
> 
> You say *never*; I give an example of *not never*. How can that be
> irrelevant ?

By your own account, it is not a space character.

On top of that, your idea that one would have to insert a space character 
before end marks in plain ASCII text because one has no other choice to 
achieve the same readability as printed material is absurd.  It is the extra 
space that *reduces* readability then, particularly when, because of this, 
the end mark is word-wrapped.

>> caused to be cited by fallacy,
> 
> 'cited by fallacy' does not make sense. It is  meaningless.

I do not think so.  But if you better understand it, “cited because of 
previous fallacy”, then.
 
>> followed by fallacy.
>>
>> With plain "ASCII" text it is the designer of the (fixed-width) font that
>> must, with kerning, make sure that there is a *spacing* between the 
>> glyphs *even though* the characters are used in orthographic fashion,
> 
> Some font designers design for paper prints, not for screens with a
> lower resolution.

Irrelevant.
 
>> and the author of a text should choose a font for display that has proper 
>> kerning to ease readability (at least for them).  They must _not_ insert 
>> space characters of any kind contrary to orthography¹.
>   <snip>
> 
> No. The author can change the kerning for particular characters when
> using a desktop publishing tool such as Framemaker or Word 2. (Both
> have character styles).

Which still has nothing to do with inserting (space) characters.  It has to 
do with *spacing* *between* (non-whitespace) characters.

What do you mean by “Word 2”?

> Incidentally, the Oxford Dictionary of English says that 'orthography'
> is the 'conventional spelling system of a language'. So does the
> Cambridge online dictionary.

Spelling is a subset of orthography, of how to write correctly.  So is 
punctuation, the topic at hand.

As you are either unwilling or unable to back up your position, to cut this 
short: You will find in the respective style guides (the “New Oxford Style 
Manual”, among others) how the English language is (supposed to be) written; 
it does _not_ include the insertion of white-space before end marks. ∎

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26613

On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:02:58 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>John Harris wrote:
>
>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>>> John Harris wrote:
>>>> [?] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [?] wrote:
>>> Kerning has nothing to do with inserting a space character of any kind.
>> 
>> Positive kerning has *everything* to with inserting white space, using
>> whatever technology is available.
>
>Utter nonsense.
>
>>>> As an example, there are books published by Victor Gollancz Ltd, a
>>>> reputable publisher, that have a longer gap in front of ? and !. It
>>>> isn't a space character, but in plain ASCII text there isn't any other
>>>> choice.
>>> Irrelevant evidence
>> 
>> You say *never*; I give an example of *not never*. How can that be
>> irrelevant ?
>
>By your own account, it is not a space character.
  <snip>

Now there's clever. You look at a page of a book, at the gap between
two characters, and confidently assert that the effect was caused by
... . Well, by kerning, or by one of the space characters, or by a
piece of lead (in older books). But lead is (was) used for kerning
(permitted) and also for spaces (forbidden). The lead is like the
famous quantum cat - in two opposite states at the same time. That is,
until the right person observes it.

I didn't say it was not a space character. I said there was a gap.

It should be obvious that the means of achieving that effect is not
important. It's the visible effect that matters.

 
>> No. The author can change the kerning for particular characters when
>> using a desktop publishing tool such as Framemaker or Word 2. (Both
>> have character styles).
>
>Which still has nothing to do with inserting (space) characters.  It has to 
>do with *spacing* *between* (non-whitespace) characters.
>
>What do you mean by “Word 2”?

I mean Microsoft Word for Windows 2. It ran on Win 3.1, and was a word
processor, and still is, now as Word 2013.


>> Incidentally, the Oxford Dictionary of English says that 'orthography'
>> is the 'conventional spelling system of a language'. So does the
>> Cambridge online dictionary.
>
>Spelling is a subset of orthography, of how to write correctly.  So is 
>punctuation, the topic at hand.

The online Encyclopedia Britannica also says orthography means study
of spelling.

It looks as though your extended meaning hadn't gathered sufficient
evidence of use at the time these standard references were last
updated.


>As you are either unwilling or unable to back up your position, to cut this 
>short: You will find in the respective style guides (the “New Oxford Style 
>Manual”, among others) how the English language is (supposed to be) written; 
>it does _not_ include the insertion of white-space before end marks. ?

The Oxford book is said by the publisher to contain advice; you call
it a guide. It is not a law of nature, not an EU Directive, and not a
UK law. It reports today's fashion, which is different from fashion in
the recent past, and will no doubt be different in the future.

And the example I referred to was not an unusual house style. I've
found another well known publisher, Collins, who did the same. It must
have been fashionable in the 1940s.

  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web