10 Jun
2000
10 Jun
'00
12:19 p.m.
On June 10, R. D. Davis wrote:
Can certain list members who aren't sending
standard ASCII text kindly
fix their e-mail software so that they stop sending messagse that
could possibly cause problems for some people using older systems?
Doesn't it seem a little strange that people who are interested in
computer preservation are sending iso-8859-1 character set messages
instead of normal ASCII to a mailing list where others are likely to
be using older systems to read their e-mail? Once ASCII goes away,
then we've all got problems that would make our older systems very
much incompatible with everything else and less useful. Is not plain
old ASCII one standard that we should value and do our best to keep
from going out of use?
I agree 100%. Though I must point out that it has nothing at all to
do with "older" or "newer" systems...it's primarily a
"windows" or
"non-windows" issue.
-Dave McGuire
10 Jun
10 Jun
3:49 p.m.
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Dave McGuire wrote:
I agree 100%. Though I must point out that it has
nothing at all to
do with "older" or "newer" systems...it's primarily a
"windows" or
"non-windows" issue.
Hmmm, so this is an operating systems vs. a pseudo operating system
issue. Thanks for the explanation.
--
R. D. Davis
rdd(a)perqlogic.com
http://www.perqlogic.com/rdd
410-744-4900
4:43 p.m.
::> I agree 100%. Though I must point out that it has nothing at all to
::> do with "older" or "newer" systems...it's primarily a
"windows" or
::> "non-windows" issue.
::
::Hmmm, so this is an operating systems vs. a pseudo operating system
::issue. Thanks for the explanation.
iN THE SPIRIT OF THIS DISCUSSION, i SUBMIT THAT ALL MAIL SHOULD
ACTUALLY BE IN petascii, AS BEFITS A CLASSIC COMPUTING FORUM.
tHIS PARTICULAR MESSAGE SHOULD HOPEFULLY SET AN EXAMPLE.
--
--------------------------- PERSONAL PAGE: HTTP://WWW.ARMORY.COM/%7eSPECTRE/ --
cAMERON kAISER * pOINT lOMA nAZARENE uNIVERSITY * CKAISER(a)PTLOMA.EDU
-- i DO NOT FEAR COMPUTERS. i FEAR THE LACK OF THEM. -- iSAAC aSIMOV ----------
5:26 p.m.
::> I agree 100%. Though I must point out that
it has nothing at all to
::> do with "older" or "newer" systems...it's primarily a
"windows" or
::> "non-windows" issue.
::
::Hmmm, so this is an operating systems vs. a pseudo operating system
::issue. Thanks for the explanation.
iN THE SPIRIT OF THIS DISCUSSION, i SUBMIT THAT ALL MAIL SHOULD
ACTUALLY BE IN petascii, AS BEFITS A CLASSIC COMPUTING FORUM.
tHIS PARTICULAR MESSAGE SHOULD HOPEFULLY SET AN EXAMPLE.
I ^C^A^N^N^O^T ^U^N^D^E^R^S^T^A^N^D ^W^H^A^T ^Y^O^U ^A^R^E ^T^R^Y^I^N^G
^T^O ^S^A^Y. C^A^N ^Y^O^U ^R^E^S^E^N^D ^T^H^E ^M^E^S^S^A^G^E ^U^S^I^N^G
^P^R^O^P^E^R C^O^N^T^R^O^L D^A^T^A C^O^R^P^O^R^A^T^I^O^N (CDC) ASCII?
T^H^A^N^K ^Y^O^U.
L^A^W^R^E^N^C^E L^EM^A^Y
!RUTGERS!UMN-CS!LEMAY
6 p.m.
That reduces almost trivially to a convenience versus self-flagellation
issue. After years of fiddling with pine and the like, whichever happened
to be on the system to which I had shell access, I'm glad there's a
convenient way to utilize the net. Without getting into the Windows versus
"other" debate, I must say it's a simple matter of using what's easy
and
convenient as opposed to something not so easy and not so convenient.
Neither one does exactly what I want it to do, but one is close enough while
the other isn't. Apparently lots of others feel the same way, though I
imagine most Windows users have no other experience on the net.
I'd say it's easy enough for most folks to turn off the
fancier-than-plain-old-text mode and resort to simple text transmission.
Occasionally, however, since I do communicate with people who like to use
HTML, I sometimes forget and leave the mode in whichever state it was when I
answered the previous mail. Perhaps others have made that mistake as well.
The inconvenience of being incompatible with the HTML when I'm using a CP/M
system (which I certainly don't do on the net) is a price one pays for using
an old dog that can't seem to learn new tricks. Almost any 15-year-old long
obsolete SUN box can do it. If I want to use my old 8-bitter to do this,
inconvenient or not, it's my choice, don't you think?
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: R. D. Davis <rdd(a)smart.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: ASCII e-mail vs iso-8859-1
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Dave McGuire wrote:
I agree 100%. Though I must point out that it
has nothing at all to
do with "older" or "newer" systems...it's primarily a
"windows" or
"non-windows" issue.
Hmmm, so this is an operating systems vs. a pseudo operating system
issue. Thanks for the explanation.
--
R. D. Davis
rdd(a)perqlogic.com
http://www.perqlogic.com/rdd
410-744-4900
8:59 p.m.
Even with windows I hate the non-ascii layout
Sipke
----- Original Message -----
From: R. D. Davis <rdd(a)smart.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: ASCII e-mail vs iso-8859-1
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Dave McGuire wrote:
I agree 100%. Though I must point out that it
has nothing at all to
do with "older" or "newer" systems...it's primarily a
"windows" or
"non-windows" issue.
Hmmm, so this is an operating systems vs. a pseudo operating system
issue. Thanks for the explanation.
--
R. D. Davis
rdd(a)perqlogic.com
http://www.perqlogic.com/rdd
410-744-4900
14 Jun
14 Jun
3:59 p.m.
> Doesn't it seem a little strange that people
who are interested in
> computer preservation are sending iso-8859-1 character set messages
> instead of normal ASCII to a mailing list where others are likely to
> be using older systems to read their e-mail? Once ASCII goes away,
> then we've all got problems that would make our older systems very
> much incompatible with everything else and less useful. Is not plain
> old ASCII one standard that we should value and do our best to keep
> from going out of use?
I agree 100%. Though I must point out that it has
nothing at all to
do with "older" or "newer" systems...it's primarily a
"windows" or
"non-windows" issue.
Well, not exactly - Windows IS NOT using 8859-1 - and I woundn't considere
the usage of 8859 as something to harm classic system users nor users of
non win sytems - in fact, 8859 is only in use among Unix stuff, and 8859
is probably the most 'classic friendly' way of an extended 8-Bit coding
since it leaves the 'high bit set' control codes (80-9F) unasigned. 8859
is eventualy one of the few standards where still people with real knowledge
have been involved and tried to create the least harmfull solution.
And to avoide some misconceptions, RTF, HTML, or whatever fancy formating
has _nothing_ to do with 8859 (the code is not responsible for beeing
used by some other stuff :).
8859-x is todays ASCII.
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 2.0 am 28./29. April 2001 in Muenchen
http://www.vintage.org/vcfe
http://www.homecomputer.de/vcfe
8982
days inactive
8986
days old
6 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
ckaiser＠oa.ptloma.edu -
Hans.Franke＠mch20.sbs.de -
lemay＠cs.umn.edu -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
rdd＠smart.net -
richard＠idcomm.com -
sipke＠wxs.nl