Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #194373 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mess-mate <mess-mate@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-01 16:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2018-04-04 14:20 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 101 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
utf mess-mate <mess-mate@gmx.com> - 2018-04-01 16:10 +0200
Re: utf Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-04-01 17:50 +0200
Re: utf Ionel Mugurel Ciobîcă <I.M.Ciobica@upcmail.nl> - 2018-04-01 18:30 +0200
Re: utf Andre Majorel <aym-naibed@teaser.fr> - 2018-04-01 18:40 +0200
Re: utf Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2018-04-01 22:10 +0200
Re: utf Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-02 00:50 +0200
Re: utf Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-04-02 09:50 +0200
Re: utf Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2018-04-02 11:40 +0200
Re: utf Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-04-02 15:30 +0200
Re: utf Andre Majorel <aym-naibed@teaser.fr> - 2018-04-02 09:50 +0200
Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-04-02 14:40 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-04-02 15:10 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> - 2018-04-02 15:10 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-04-02 19:50 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> - 2018-04-02 20:20 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-04-02 20:50 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) tomas@tuxteam.de - 2018-04-02 21:00 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-04-02 21:10 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) Michael Lange <klappnase@freenet.de> - 2018-04-03 00:50 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-04-03 13:50 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2018-04-03 14:00 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-04-03 14:30 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) Michael Lange <klappnase@freenet.de> - 2018-04-03 14:10 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) Michael Lange <klappnase@freenet.de> - 2018-04-03 14:20 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-04-03 14:40 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) Michael Lange <klappnase@freenet.de> - 2018-04-03 21:50 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-04-03 21:50 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) Michael Lange <klappnase@freenet.de> - 2018-04-03 22:10 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-04-03 14:40 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-04-04 03:10 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-04-04 03:20 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2018-04-04 13:30 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-04-04 14:10 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2018-04-04 14:10 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-04-04 14:50 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2018-04-04 15:00 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) Andre Majorel <aym-naibed@teaser.fr> - 2018-04-04 16:20 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-04-04 16:30 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-04-04 18:00 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-04-04 18:00 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2018-04-04 20:50 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-04-04 14:30 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-04-04 15:10 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2018-04-04 19:40 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2018-04-04 19:50 +0200
mbox vs maildir vs better formats [Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf)] Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2018-04-04 20:00 +0200
Re: mbox vs maildir vs better formats [Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf)] Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2018-04-04 20:10 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-04-04 20:40 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2018-04-04 20:50 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-04-05 14:40 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-05 00:20 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-04-04 21:30 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> - 2018-04-04 13:20 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-04-04 16:10 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> - 2018-04-04 20:50 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-04-04 21:30 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2018-04-04 23:50 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-04-05 01:00 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2018-04-04 21:00 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2018-04-04 20:30 +0200
Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-04-04 21:30 +0200
Re: utf Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2018-04-02 23:40 +0200
Re: utf Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2018-04-03 11:00 +0200
Re: utf Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2018-04-03 11:20 +0200
Re: utf <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-04-03 11:30 +0200
Re: utf Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2018-04-03 12:20 +0200
Re: utf Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2018-04-03 22:50 +0200
Re: utf Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2018-04-03 23:00 +0200
Re: utf Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-04-03 23:00 +0200
Re: utf Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2018-04-03 23:30 +0200
Re: utf deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-04 19:00 +0200
Re: utf Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2018-04-04 19:10 +0200
Re: utf Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-04-04 19:30 +0200
Re: utf Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2018-04-04 19:40 +0200
Re: utf deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-04 19:40 +0200
Re: utf Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2018-04-04 19:40 +0200
Re: utf Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-04-04 19:50 +0200
Re: utf Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2018-04-04 20:00 +0200
Re: utf deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-04 23:20 +0200
Re: utf Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2018-04-05 02:30 +0200
Re: utf Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2018-04-05 14:10 +0200
Re: utf Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2018-04-05 00:00 +0200
Re: utf rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-04-04 20:30 +0200
Re: utf Joel Roth <joelz@pobox.com> - 2018-04-04 21:30 +0200
Re: utf deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-04 23:40 +0200
Re: utf <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-04-05 08:30 +0200
Re: utf rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-04-05 14:50 +0200
Re: utf <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-04-05 15:00 +0200
Re: utf Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2018-04-05 15:00 +0200
Re: utf tomas@tuxteam.de - 2018-04-05 15:10 +0200
Re: utf deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-05 21:40 +0200
Re: utf Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2018-04-05 23:30 +0200
Re: utf deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-05 23:40 +0200
Re: utf Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2018-04-06 03:20 +0200
Re: utf <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-04-06 09:00 +0200
Re: utf Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2018-04-06 04:20 +0200
Re: utf <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-04-06 09:10 +0200
Re: utf Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2018-04-05 19:00 +0200
Re: utf rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-04-05 20:00 +0200
Re: utf Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2018-04-03 23:40 +0200
Re: utf Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> - 2018-04-04 14:20 +0200
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-05 14:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vBbSi-4n5-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194518 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Richard Hector (2018-04-05): > >> What if the question is "Find all the English words that have an E > >> in the 5th position and a U in the 7th"? > > Yes, what? Who would ever ask such a question? What is the point of such > > a question? > Solving a crossword puzzle? This is a good example, thanks, but I think it goes eventually for my point. Words in a crossword puzzle are not generic text. You cannot do them in Chinese, for example, AFAIK. Even in English, if you just have a list of words, you cannot use it directly for crossword puzzles, you first need to filter it to remove the few diacritics that have seeped from other languages, because the "é" in "précising", for example, can be crossed with a normal "e" in any word. Starting from a list in "pure" text, you need to build the data structure that is convenient for the particular problem. And indeed, for crossword puzzles, accessing the n-th letter of a de-diacriticized word is a necessary operation. But it is not accessing the n-th letter of a generic string. Regards, -- Nicolas George
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-05 00:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vAYBH-3RC-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194494 |
> You just seem to have Decided, for reasons known only to you, that
> The Character Length Of A String Is Not Useful. Despite literally
> decades of programs that have used strlen() in various ways.
strlen was mostly used in a context where char-length = byte-length =
display-width. Most of those calls to strlen have nothing to do with
char-length but are more interested in display-width or byte-length.
In the context of Unicode, using utf-8 doesn't make byte-length any
harder than with ASCII. And in the context of Unicode, display-width
is a lot more complex than strlen regardless of which encoding you use
because any given Unicode char can have a display-width of 0, 1, or
2 (even if you disregard proportional fonts and other fancy rendering
tricks). So utf-8 doesn't make the computation of display-width any
more complex than utf-32.
> What if the question is "Find all the English words that have an E
> in the 5th position and a U in the 7th"?
That can be answered just as easily and efficiently from a utf-8
representation of the string as from a utf-32 representation.
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-04 20:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vAVkt-1DA-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194486 |
On Wednesday, April 04, 2018 12:58:57 PM deloptes wrote: > And regarding the mbox thing, well mbox was depreciated for many reasons. I > guess if it was that good it wouldn't be depreciated. Oh, I wasn't aware that mbox was deprecated--can you shed more light on that. AFAIK, it is not defined in an RFC and is used by quite a few email programs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel Roth <joelz@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-04 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vAWgx-2ha-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194499 |
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 02:20:17PM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, April 04, 2018 12:58:57 PM deloptes wrote: > > And regarding the mbox thing, well mbox was depreciated for many reasons. I > > guess if it was that good it wouldn't be depreciated. > Oh, I wasn't aware that mbox was deprecated--can you shed more light on that. > AFAIK, it is not defined in an RFC and is used by quite a few email programs. Not exactly deprecated, but it's considered a less reliable storage format, because of potential problems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbox I converted to Maildir for better compatibility with the mu indexing programs (package maildir-utils). cheers, -- Joel Roth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-04 23:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vAYim-3HY-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194499 |
rhkramer@gmail.com wrote: > Oh, I wasn't aware that mbox was deprecated--can you shed more light on > that. AFAIK, it is not defined in an RFC and is used by quite a few email > programs. yes but Maildir format was introduced for couple of reasons (as well as other formats). I wouldn't store my mail in mbox anyway. For local system/user mails as a simple default storage perhaps yes - it might be OK, but for public mail, where you have 1000+ mails and perhaps multiple interfaces ... no chance. https://wiki2.dovecot.org/MailboxFormat https://wiki2.dovecot.org/MailboxFormat/mbox https://wiki2.dovecot.org/MailboxFormat/Maildir I have worked on cloud mail solution using dovecot with mysql backend for 18mil customers. Another company was using dbmail with mysql with very good results. But this goes somehow off topic in regards of original UTF The only advantage I see with mbox is that it is really simple. regards
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-05 08:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vB6zf-Sw-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194512 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:33:13PM +0200, deloptes wrote: [...] > other formats). I wouldn't store my mail in mbox anyway. For local > system/user mails as a simple default storage perhaps yes - it might be OK, > but for public mail, where you have 1000+ mails and perhaps multiple > interfaces ... no chance. Increase that by 2-3 orders of magnitude and I'd agree (FWIW, I'm working off an mbox with ~15K mails. Works fine). Cheers - -- t -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlrFwXkACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaAsACfa1vlRYeQJDH/mFkn8NWViU5J JKMAn1AvJGRmB1tGHKxWiFT15z9NqnQy =K1gZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-05 14:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vBcuZ-4Bk-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194519 |
On Thursday, April 05, 2018 02:26:01 AM tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:33:13PM +0200, deloptes wrote: > > [...] > > > other formats). I wouldn't store my mail in mbox anyway. For local > > system/user mails as a simple default storage perhaps yes - it might be > > OK, but for public mail, where you have 1000+ mails and perhaps multiple > > interfaces ... no chance. > > Increase that by 2-3 orders of magnitude and I'd agree (FWIW, I'm working > off an mbox with ~15K mails. Works fine). I'm laughing (at myself)--I just checked my mail directory, I have at least 4 mbox files (and then I stopped looking) greater than 175 MB. One of them, my inbox, is 2.8 GB--no problems. I do need to compact my inbox, and I did, but maybe the actual file isn't changed until I quit kmail--I'll try that later.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-05 15:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vBcEF-4Fa-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194523 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 08:42:39AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, April 05, 2018 02:26:01 AM tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: [...] > > Increase that by 2-3 orders of magnitude [...] > I'm laughing (at myself)--I just checked my mail directory, I have at least 4 > mbox files (and then I stopped looking) greater than 175 MB. One of them, my > inbox, is 2.8 GB--no problems. > > I do need to compact my inbox, and I did, but maybe the actual file isn't > changed until I quit kmail--I'll try that later. Actually people saying mbox is a bad database are in principle right (I never liked maildir either: dumping metadata into file names seemed to me a bit disgusting too, but I disgress). But there's something special about mail databases which eases that a bit: records (i.e. mails) are *mostly* immutable (save for some metadata), so cleverly written libs (mutt, dovecot) can be suprisingly good despite all. But then when I see people proposing XML as structured data representation, I suddenly grow very sad... Cheers - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlrGHKQACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbeJQCfS1sQhck1kmoysI4bBR2gRUtn +LMAnAjbK9bFWygOtoA1OwmS9TLqulHU =BvB3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-05 15:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vBcEG-4Fa-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194524 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
tomas@tuxteam.de (2018-04-05): > But then when I see people proposing XML as structured data > representation, I suddenly grow very sad... Isn't it? Regards, -- Nicolas George
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tomas@tuxteam.de |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-05 15:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vBcOm-4XV-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194525 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 02:56:47PM +0200, Nicolas George wrote: > tomas@tuxteam.de (2018-04-05): > > But then when I see people proposing XML as structured data > > representation, I suddenly grow very sad... > > Isn't it? For the last 6 years I've seen it done a lot, and yes, I speak of painful experience. XML is a baroque, but passable document serialization language. But (mis-)using it as a data serialization language must be one of the worst (and ugliest) misunderstandings IT has had the last 20 years. Cheers - -- t -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlrGHfEACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZLOgCdHbxd3ACh+/5BSLAPtijkkZra UaUAn2nkEXU74FXWntUunIwzAFAL6VwJ =FkWM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-05 21:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vBiTM-gQ-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194526 |
tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 02:56:47PM +0200, Nicolas George wrote: >> tomas@tuxteam.de (2018-04-05): >> > But then when I see people proposing XML as structured data >> > representation, I suddenly grow very sad... >> >> Isn't it? > > For the last 6 years I've seen it done a lot, and yes, I speak > of painful experience. > > XML is a baroque, but passable document serialization language. > > But (mis-)using it as a data serialization language must be one > of the worst (and ugliest) misunderstandings IT has had the last > 20 years. > Don't know about your experience - in the past 10+y I worked a lot with XML. It might be not suitable for the specific case (I am not sure I understood correctly what OPs goal is), but XML does not care what kind of data you will embed as far as it is typed and as a machine exchange language it is exactly what it is intended to be. In terms of serialization it also depends - but the point was to split text and process it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-05 23:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vBkCd-1rd-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194526 |
> But (mis-)using it as a data serialization language must be one
> of the worst (and ugliest) misunderstandings IT has had the last
> 20 years.
UUIC that's partly why it's finally losing popularity and being replaced
with json for that use. I'm not familiar enough with json to know if
it's really a good replacement, but it does look like an improvement.
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-05 23:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vBkLT-1uD-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194531 |
Stefan Monnier wrote: > UUIC that's partly why it's finally losing popularity and being replaced > with json for that use. I'm not familiar enough with json to know if > it's really a good replacement, but it does look like an improvement. that is simply not true. JSON might be more simple, and might be a replacement to XML in some cases, but XML has the features of SGML and per definition XML is not a single Markup Language. It is a metalanguage to let users design their own markup language. According wikipedia JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) "is a very common data format used for asynchronous browser–server communication". regards
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-06 03:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vBocN-46c-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194532 |
>> UUIC that's partly why it's finally losing popularity and being replaced
>> with json for that use. I'm not familiar enough with json to know if
>> it's really a good replacement, but it does look like an improvement.
> that is simply not true.
Did you read the text to which I was responding? Because your reply
does not seem to contradict mine: I was talking about uses of XML for
"data serialization".
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-06 09:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vBtvQ-7xO-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194538 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 09:14:51PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: > >> UUIC that's partly why it's finally losing popularity and being replaced > >> with json for that use. I'm not familiar enough with json to know if > >> it's really a good replacement, but it does look like an improvement. > > that is simply not true. > > Did you read the text to which I was responding? Because your reply > does not seem to contradict mine: I was talking about uses of XML for > "data serialization". Exactly. And that's the "misunderstanding" part I was talking about. XML was intended as a document serialization language (as was SGML). As such, it's passable, although (by far!) not pretty. It has been misused as a data serialization language, and that's the problem. Now JSON *is* a much better data serialization language (it does have its problems, mind you: among other things having "integers" and not telling you whether there's a max int or what happens when you pass that possible limit). The JSON folks don't help, in that they stubbornly talk about a JSON "document" and pit "JSON vs XML". They are different beasts. Try writing your next letter in JSON to see what I mean (this is more directed at deloptes: you, Stefan and me are in violent agreement, I think). Cheers - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlrHGU8ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYGXwCfYGe5n5NBhoCeH/VMJ/WSmPNN kacAnjGk/KjRr+/0tkVz79ra0rPFbefq =RJ22 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-06 04:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vBp8R-4Qn-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194532 |
On 06/04/18 09:33, deloptes wrote: > Stefan Monnier wrote: >> UUIC that's partly why it's finally losing popularity and being replaced >> with json for that use. I'm not familiar enough with json to know if >> it's really a good replacement, but it does look like an improvement. > that is simply not true. JSON might be more simple, and might be a > replacement to XML in some cases, but XML has the features of SGML and per > definition > XML is not a single Markup Language. It is a metalanguage to let users > design their own markup language. Indeed. XML has W3C XML Schema, and stronger validation can be specified with Schematron (an ISO standard). JSON Schema is only an IETF draft. JSONP allows avoidance of JavaScript XMLHttpRequest same-origin rules and has increased the popularity of JSON, but the modern solution is CORS. Kind regards, -- Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> Director Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/> New Zealand
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-06 09:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vBtFv-7QW-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194539 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 02:12:22PM +1200, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote: > On 06/04/18 09:33, deloptes wrote: > >Stefan Monnier wrote: > >>UUIC that's partly why it's finally losing popularity and being replaced > >>with json for that use. I'm not familiar enough with json to know if > >>it's really a good replacement, but it does look like an improvement. > >that is simply not true. JSON might be more simple, and might be a > >replacement to XML in some cases, but XML has the features of SGML and per > >definition > >XML is not a single Markup Language. It is a metalanguage to let users > >design their own markup language. > > Indeed. XML has W3C XML Schema, and stronger validation can be > specified with Schematron (an ISO standard). JSON Schema is only an > IETF draft. JSONP allows avoidance of JavaScript XMLHttpRequest > same-origin rules and has increased the popularity of JSON, but the > modern solution is CORS. Well, I think here we're leaving the document/vs data thing: if you are already serializing whole objects (with methods), that's a whole other kettle of fish (with more interesting consequences: the Java community has lots of experience with that [1]) Cheers [1] https://it.slashdot.org/story/18/03/27/2041225/atlanta-hit-by-ransomware-attack-also-fell-victim-to-leaked-nsa-exploits - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlrHGwcACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbeXQCfSNIO5s234lVFZHVy/+NFnGYR JBsAn3geK1MkkWpX3OxJOp7+Aixo+FFJ =2u7X -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-05 19:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vBgoW-73k-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194524 |
> Actually people saying mbox is a bad database are in principle right
> (I never liked maildir either: dumping metadata into file names seemed
> to me a bit disgusting too, but I disgress). But there's something
> special about mail databases which eases that a bit: records (i.e.
> mails) are *mostly* immutable (save for some metadata), so cleverly
> written libs (mutt, dovecot) can be suprisingly good despite all.
Actually, I think the reason it works is unrelated: it's just that
people have put enough engineering efforts into making it work for large
mailboxes despite its inadequate format.
Caching, auxiliary indexes, batched-rewrites, etc... can go a long way.
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-05 20:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vBhl0-7Dz-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194523 |
On Thursday, April 05, 2018 08:42:39 AM rhkramer@gmail.com wrote: > I'm laughing (at myself)--I just checked my mail directory, I have at least > 4 mbox files (and then I stopped looking) greater than 175 MB. One of > them, my inbox, is 2.8 GB--no problems. > > I do need to compact my inbox, and I did, but maybe the actual file isn't > changed until I quit kmail--I'll try that later. Just an update, in case someone is trying to follow along--it turns out (and I remember now) that kmail disables compaction on large mbox files "for safety reasons". I forget how I've done it in the past--I probably copied the still valid emails into a temporary mail folder, deleted the current inbox, then created a new inbox and moved the emails from the temporary folder back to the new inbox. I'll do all that with kmail not running. (Getting old is aggravating.) I might also look for a utility that can compact mbox files--at first glance, it looks like archivemail can do that and is in the repository for Wheezy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-03 23:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vABON-53T-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194465 |
>> > What is the length of a string?
>> When is that relevant?
> When you're trying to display one on a screen, or print one on paper.
To display a string you don't just need its length, you need the actual
bitmap representation, and getting info such as length is trivial once
you've rendered the string into a bitmap (finding relevant fonts, etc..).
Also, when it comes to display you never really care about the length of
the string: you typically care about its pixel-width and
pixel-height instead.
> When you've been asked to find the longest/shortest string from a list.
> When you've been asked to sort a list of strings by length.
Again, if it's for display purposes, you'll want to use the actually
pixel-width instead, which again introduces the need to figure out which
font (or set of fonts since many/most fonts only cover a subset of
Unicode) to use, etc...
> Or in other words, basically every time you do anything with the string
> at all other than blindly byte-copying it to a different place in memory.
Your experience is quite different from mine.
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web