hi all, it strange, when i use open() to open a FIFO to write, but i find when i use
open(Fifo,O_WRONLY | O_CREAT | O_TRUNC);
it will block
i really confused
41  1866 
freegnu wrote:
hi all, it strange, when i use open() to open a FIFO to write, but i find when i use
open(Fifo,O_WRONLY | O_CREAT | O_TRUNC);
it will block
i really confused
write() is not defined by the C standard. You need to post on an
appriate news group. Perhaps one that discusses Unix.
--
Nick Keighley
freegnu <fr*****@163.comwrote:
hi all, it strange, when i use open() to open a FIFO to write, but i find when i use
open(Fifo,O_WRONLY | O_CREAT | O_TRUNC);
it will block
That's a question you should take to another newsgroup (I guess that
comp.unix.programmer might do) since neither the open() function nor
FIFOs are something that are defined by the C language (the topic of
this group) but are extensions e.g. defined by the POSIX standard,
thus a group dealing with POSIX is the one where you should ask.
<OffTopic>
First, O_TRUNC is useless when opening a FIFO and O_CREAT also, be-
cause you already need to have created it using mkfifo(). Second,
opening a FIFO always blocks until both sides have opened it (unless
you open it in non-blocking mode), see the man page for fifo(4) and
mkfifo(3), both pointing this out.
</OffTopic>
Regards, Jens
--
\ Jens Thoms Toerring ___ jt@toerring.de
\__________________________ http://toerring.de
freegnu wrote:
>
Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
Encoding: quoted-printable
Don't use html or mime types in Usenet.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
2006-10-24 <45***************@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer wrote:
Don't use html or mime types in Usenet.
It's entirely unclear to me why not. IIRC the only format restriction on
usenet is that binary (i.e. anything whose mime type would not begin
"text/") is not acceptable in non-binary groups. Wouldn't it make more
sense for text-based newsreaders to automatically display the text/plain
and ignore the text/html portion? And "don't use mime types" is a bit
of a strange way to put it - surely you meant "don't use multipart
messages" - i'm using a mime type right now, which you likely wouldn't
have noticed if i hadn't pointed it out (in case you're stumped, try
checking the headers)
Note: My newsreader did not handle it the way I suggested either. My
point is, rather, that maybe it should have.
Jordan Abel wrote:
CBFalconer wrote:
>Don't use html or mime types in Usenet.
It's entirely unclear to me why not. IIRC the only format
restriction on usenet is that binary (i.e. anything whose mime
type would not begin "text/") is not acceptable in non-binary
groups. Wouldn't it make more sense for text-based newsreaders to
automatically display the text/plain and ignore the text/html
portion? And "don't use mime types" is a bit of a strange way to
put it - surely you meant "don't use multipart messages" - i'm
using a mime type right now, which you likely wouldn't have
noticed if i hadn't pointed it out (in case you're stumped, try
checking the headers)
The fundamental reason for banning html is that they can carry
infections to unwary systems, such as webbugs, or worse. Pure text
cannot.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
2006-10-24 <45***************@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer wrote:
Jordan Abel wrote:
>CBFalconer wrote:
>>Don't use html or mime types in Usenet.
It's entirely unclear to me why not. IIRC the only format
restriction on usenet is that binary (i.e. anything whose mime
type would not begin "text/") is not acceptable in non-binary
groups. Wouldn't it make more sense for text-based newsreaders to
automatically display the text/plain and ignore the text/html
portion? And "don't use mime types" is a bit of a strange way to
put it - surely you meant "don't use multipart messages" - i'm
using a mime type right now, which you likely wouldn't have
noticed if i hadn't pointed it out (in case you're stumped, try
checking the headers)
The fundamental reason for banning html is that they can carry
infections to unwary systems, such as webbugs, or worse. Pure text
cannot.
OK, I guess you're right.
--
This sig-webbug is based on the honor system. Please go to the form
located at http://821.340.510.276/webbug.php and enter the message-id of
this message, the date and time that you opened the message, your IP
address, and your newsreader version (including OS version).
On 24 Oct 2006 14:17:48 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<ra****@random.yi.orgwrote:
>2006-10-24 <45***************@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer wrote:
>Don't use html or mime types in Usenet.
It's entirely unclear to me why not.
because html is an executable file format, and many other mime types
are frequently used to deliver virus payload.
Plus usenet is inherently a text medium, and many newsreaders display
multipart mime messages rather oddly.
>and ignore the text/html portion? And "don't use mime types" is a bit
of a strange way to put it - surely you meant "don't use multipart
messages"
I agree, even plain text is techically a mime type.
--
Mark McIntyre
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
In article <sl******************@rlaptop.random.yi.org>,
Jordan Abel <ra*******@gmail.comwrote:
>2006-10-24 <45***************@yahoo.com>,
>CBFalconer wrote:
>Don't use html or mime types in Usenet.
>It's entirely unclear to me why not. IIRC the only format restriction on
usenet is that binary (i.e. anything whose mime type would not begin
"text/") is not acceptable in non-binary groups.
You don't RC (Recall Correctly).
Except where specifically permitted by charter, newsgroups messages
shall not be encoded.
>Wouldn't it make more
sense for text-based newsreaders to automatically display the text/plain
and ignore the text/html portion?
Newsreaders were designed around the NNTP standards and standard
Usenet usage, which in turn was -specifically- tailored towards maximizing
the opportunities to read the message, especially on high-cost links.
MIME did not exist when the major newsreaders were designed. Telling
people that they have to start using clunky new interfaces such as
IE is Not Acceptable.
You are presuming that HTML messages get posted in both formats.
A lot of the time they don't, and are only posted in HTML.
Permitting HTML is also an open invitation to use non-ASCII
characters (by &entity; or &#number;), and big invitation
to include embedded images and embedded javascript and Active X
and so on -- after all, if people don't like it, all they have to
do is tell their newsreader to show them the plain text version, right?
>And "don't use mime types" is a bit
of a strange way to put it - surely you meant "don't use multipart
messages" - i'm using a mime type right now, which you likely wouldn't
have noticed if i hadn't pointed it out (in case you're stumped, try
checking the headers)
MIME -- are you aware that the very name of it includes the word "Mail".
Not "Usenet" but "Mail".
As far as Usenet is concerned, a Content-type header is just another
non-standard header that should have been named starting with
X- to indicate an optional eXtension header (like X-Face), but which
is tolerated on sufferance under the principle of "It's best to just
ignore non-standard headers; they shouldn't be there, but if you
pretend it wasn't there then maybe the reader will be able to make
*some* sense out of the message." The key word there is "ignore":
as far as Usenet and NNTP are concerned, Content-type: is a noise
header and the body must stand on its own.
If you feel strongly that HTML should be permitted in comp.lang.c
then create an HTML-friendly comp.lang.c analog somewhere and see
whether you get much company.
If you feel strongly that HTML (and Content-Type) should be
recognized by NNTP and permitted in Usenet, then you could -try-
reviving the moribund "Usenet 2" project -- or you could just do
what a lot of other people have done and gone and migrated over to
web sites.
"Think of the starving children in Africa!" -- no, but seriously,
Usenet is still expensive in a lot of the world, and the mission of
Usenet has always been to reach as far as practical as cheaply as
practical, rather than to be a playground for what the rich kids
in the "First World" could afford.
--
Prototypes are supertypes of their clones. -- maplesoft
CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrote:
Jordan Abel wrote:
CBFalconer wrote:
Don't use html or mime types in Usenet.
It's entirely unclear to me why not. IIRC the only format
restriction on usenet is that binary (i.e. anything whose mime
type would not begin "text/") is not acceptable in non-binary
groups. Wouldn't it make more sense for text-based newsreaders to
automatically display the text/plain and ignore the text/html
portion? And "don't use mime types" is a bit of a strange way to
put it - surely you meant "don't use multipart messages" - i'm
using a mime type right now, which you likely wouldn't have
noticed if i hadn't pointed it out (in case you're stumped, try
checking the headers)
The fundamental reason for banning html is that they can carry
infections to unwary systems, such as webbugs, or worse. Pure text
cannot.
And it costs considerably more bandwidth than plain text (yes, I know,
binary groups cost more, but that's no reason to waste any for frippery
like HTML) - for the worst (and therefore most common...) generators
several times more; and it's bloody ugly, and if there is no plain text
part, damn near illegible.
Richard
2006-10-24 <jh********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre wrote:
On 24 Oct 2006 14:17:48 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<ra****@random.yi.orgwrote:
>>2006-10-24 <45***************@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer wrote:
>>Don't use html or mime types in Usenet.
It's entirely unclear to me why not.
because html is an executable file format,
No, it's not. What ever gave you the idea that it was? HTML is no more
an executable format than JPEG. (and, I chose the example of JPEG for
a specific reason - can you guess what it is?)
and many other mime types are frequently used to deliver virus payload.
That's hardly relevant to this discussion.
Plus usenet is inherently a text medium, and many newsreaders display
multipart mime messages rather oddly.
N years ago, many newsreaders displayed quoted-printable rather oddly.
Some still do.
2006-10-24 <eh**********@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
Walter Roberson wrote:
Jordan Abel <ra*******@gmail.comwrote:
>>It's entirely unclear to me why not. IIRC the only format restriction on
usenet is that binary (i.e. anything whose mime type would not begin
"text/") is not acceptable in non-binary groups.
You don't RC (Recall Correctly).
Except where specifically permitted by charter, newsgroups messages
shall not be encoded.
Text is text, binary is binary, and CLC has no charter on record. But,
that aside... Can you cite a source for that? Is ascii forbidden because
it's not specifically permitted? What about utf-8 or latin-1? Or, what
about... well, see below.
--
Random832, whose message includes an _encoded_ instruction
(specifically, the instruction word 0D0A2D2D200D0A) to snip this
paragraph out when quoting for a reply.
"Walter Roberson" <ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.cawrote in message
news:eh**********@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
>And "don't use mime types" is a bit of a strange way to put it -
surely
you meant "don't use multipart messages" - i'm using a mime type
right now, which you likely wouldn't have noticed if i hadn't pointed
it out (in case you're stumped, try checking the headers)
MIME -- are you aware that the very name of it includes the word
"Mail".
Not "Usenet" but "Mail".
Another case of an IETF standard that's spread rather successfully. Do
you think MIME types don't belong in HTTP since HTTP isn't "mail"?
Using MIME headers is pretty much unavoidable since you need them for
any non-ASCII content, and there's no reason to object to news posts in
UTF-8 or Latin-1 or anything else as long as they remain in text/plain
types.
The objection is to text/html or binary attachments, and I support that.
I have no objection to MIME itself.
As far as Usenet is concerned, a Content-type header is just another
non-standard header that should have been named starting with
X- to indicate an optional eXtension header (like X-Face), but which
is tolerated on sufferance under the principle of "It's best to just
ignore non-standard headers; they shouldn't be there, but if you
pretend it wasn't there then maybe the reader will be able to make
*some* sense out of the message." The key word there is "ignore":
as far as Usenet and NNTP are concerned, Content-type: is a noise
header and the body must stand on its own.
Correction: Any headers not standardized by the IETF, i.e. private
headers, are supposed to start with X-. The IETF only defines new
extensions _without_ the X-. The X is for eXperimental, not eXtension.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
2006-10-25 <45***********************@free.teranews.com>,
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
"Walter Roberson" <ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.cawrote in message
news:eh**********@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
>As far as Usenet is concerned, a Content-type header is just another
non-standard header that should have been named starting with
X- to indicate an optional eXtension header (like X-Face), but which
is tolerated on sufferance under the principle of "It's best to just
ignore non-standard headers; they shouldn't be there, but if you
pretend it wasn't there then maybe the reader will be able to make
*some* sense out of the message." The key word there is "ignore":
as far as Usenet and NNTP are concerned, Content-type: is a noise
header and the body must stand on its own.
Correction: Any headers not standardized by the IETF, i.e. private
headers, are supposed to start with X-. The IETF only defines new
extensions _without_ the X-. The X is for eXperimental, not eXtension.
It might be worth mentioning that Content-Type is in fact standardized
by the IETF.
Quoted from USEFOR:
The MIME headers Content-Type and Content-Transfer-Encoding are often
used in news articles and have the identical meaning as that
specified in [RFC2045] with the added restrictions detailed in
Section 2.2.
Also:
User agents MUST meet the definition of MIME-conformance in
[RFC2049]. This level of MIME Conformance provides support for
internationalization and multimedia in message bodies [RFC2045], and
support for internationalization of headers [RFC2047]. Note that
[Errata] currently exist for [RFC2046] and [RFC2231].
There you have it. Content-type and Content-transfer-encoding are
officially acknowledged by a usenet standard. MIME is officially
acknowledged (and with a MUST, even) by the same usenet standard.
RFC 2049, on MIME conformance. A user agent (it says mail user agent,
but in context USEFOR is adapting this section to apply equally to
usenet user agents) that is MIME conformant MUST:
(6) Explicitly handle the following media type values, to
at least the following extents:
[...]
>Multipart:
-- Recognize the mixed subtype. Display all relevant
information on the message level and the body part
header level and then display or offer to display
each of the body parts individually.
-- Recognize the "alternative" subtype, and avoid
showing the user redundant parts of
multipart/alternative mail.
-- Recognize the "multipart/digest" subtype,
specifically using "message/rfc822" rather than
"text/plain" as the default media type for body parts
inside "multipart/digest" entities.
-- Treat any unrecognized subtypes as if they were
"mixed".
In other words, a usenet user agent MUST properly decode a multipart
message and display the appropriate part(s) (since this was an
"alternative" message, the appropriate part would be the text/plain part
for a user-agent that cannot handle text/html). This all started because
someone's user agent failed to do so, and he or she decided to blame
the sender instead of his or her own faulty newsreader.
MIME is part of usenet, and your insistence on living in the 70s does
not change that fact. I would argue that even _attachments_ (that is,
multipart/mixed) are legal in all newsgroups, as long as the attachments
themselves are text types. I think it would not be out of line for
someone to post a message with an attachment of type text/x-csrc or
text/x-chdr, for example.
In article <45***********************@free.teranews.com>,
Stephen Sprunk <st*****@sprunk.orgwrote:
>Using MIME headers is pretty much unavoidable since you need them for
any non-ASCII content, and there's no reason to object to news posts in
UTF-8 or Latin-1 or anything else as long as they remain in text/plain
types.
RFC1036 (format of Usenet messages) requires RFC822 (mail format) as a
base; RFC 822 section 3.3 requires the characters to be ASCII.
RFC977 (NNTP) says,
2.2. Character Codes
Commands and replies are composed of characters from the ASCII
character set. When the transport service provides an 8-bit byte
(octet) transmission channel, each 7-bit character is transmitted
right justified in an octet with the high order bit cleared to zero.
When an article is retrieved, the body of an article is part of
the reply to a command, so the strict 7 bit ASCII requirement applies
to posting bodies and headers. If the article managed to make it
into the system in an 8 bit character set (such as Latin-1), then the
eighth bit -must- be cleared during article retrieval in accordance
with RFC977 2.2.
Thus, for non-ASCII content, text/plain is not sufficient: at the
very least you would need to add a Content-type heading.
--
"It is important to remember that when it comes to law, computers
never make copies, only human beings make copies. Computers are given
commands, not permission. Only people can be given permission."
-- Brad Templeton
In article <sl******************@rlaptop.random.yi.org>,
Jordan Abel <ra*******@gmail.comwrote:
>It might be worth mentioning that Content-Type is in fact standardized
by the IETF.
>Quoted from USEFOR:
All USEFOR documents, including the latest from September 16, 2006,
are *draft* documents, not yet IETF approved.
Which negates the rest of your post.
--
"law -- it's a commodity"
-- Andrew Ryan (The Globe and Mail, 2005/11/26)
[encoded content by hand just to prove a point. message contains no
8-bit characters over the wire]
2006-10-25 <eh**********@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
Walter Roberson wrote:
In article <45***********************@free.teranews.com>,
Stephen Sprunk <st*****@sprunk.orgwrote:
>Using MIME headers is pretty much unavoidable since you need them for =
any non-ASCII content, and there's no reason to object to news posts in =
UTF-8 or Latin-1 or anything else as long as they remain in text/plain =
types.
RFC1036 (format of Usenet messages) requires RFC822 (mail format) as a
base; RFC 822 section 3.3 requires the characters to be ASCII.
And they are. the =3D sign and all hex digits are ascii. By UTF-8 I meant =
UTF-8 over quoted-printable of course. You have to read the requirements =
in their proper context. =E2=98=BA
In article <sl******************@rlaptop.random.yi.org>,
Jordan Abel <ra*******@gmail.comwrote:
>MIME is part of usenet, and your insistence on living in the 70s does
not change that fact.
Jordan, do I make personal judgemental comments such as
"living in the 70s" about -you-?
When it comes to Usenet, let me ask you this:
Declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest?
or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid
the corner stone thereof;
--
"law -- it's a commodity"
-- Andrew Ryan (The Globe and Mail, 2005/11/26)
2006-10-25 <eh**********@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
Walter Roberson wrote:
In article <sl******************@rlaptop.random.yi.org>,
Jordan Abel <ra*******@gmail.comwrote:
>>It might be worth mentioning that Content-Type is in fact standardized
by the IETF.
>>Quoted from USEFOR:
All USEFOR documents, including the latest from September 16, 2006,
are *draft* documents, not yet IETF approved.
Which negates the rest of your post.
And an RFC does not have the status of a standard. And guess how many
STDs apply to usenet? The answer: exactly zero. RFC822 is STD11, but
there aren't any usenet standards to reference it. No NNTP, no usenet
message standard, heck no mime when you get right down to it - as far as
standards are concerned, Usenet doesn't exist.
Now, USEFOR is quite good at _passing for_ a standard - newsreaders are
judged on it and USEAGE, posters are judged on USEAGE, etc. And there's
really nothing better.
And if we only used headers that are present in STD11... well, no
Newsgroups. no path, no xref.
USEFOR and its cousins are widely adhered to, quoted, and generally
accepted. Who gives a crap what the IETF approves - their last standard
(not counting STD1, which doesn't really count since it's just an index)
is dated 2000.
And, regardless, the fact that RFC 822 is the basis for all this means
that there are no headers that are valid for mail but invalid for
usenet, or vice versa.
2006-10-25 <eh**********@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
Walter Roberson wrote:
In article <sl******************@rlaptop.random.yi.org>,
Jordan Abel <ra*******@gmail.comwrote:
>>MIME is part of usenet, and your insistence on living in the 70s does
not change that fact.
Jordan, do I make personal judgemental comments such as
"living in the 70s" about -you-?
My understanding was that usenet was first created in the 70s [as it
turns out, I'm apparently mistaken - it was in fact the 80s] - and your
opinion seems to be that it should remain set in stone, unchanging since
that day. It was not a personal judgement, it was an observation on the
consequences of your stated opinion.
There are (or were relatively recently) posters in this very newsgroup
whose names (in the from: header) contain non-ascii characters encoded
in, i can only assume, mime format. Would you have them leave? Change
their names?
In article <sl******************@rlaptop.random.yi.org>,
Jordan Abel <ra*******@gmail.comwrote:
>And, regardless, the fact that RFC 822 is the basis for all this means
that there are no headers that are valid for mail but invalid for
usenet, or vice versa.
RFC 1036 specifically indicates that Usenet uses a restricted subset
of RFC 822.
--
All is vanity. -- Ecclesiastes
2006-10-25 <eh**********@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
Walter Roberson wrote:
In article <sl******************@rlaptop.random.yi.org>,
Jordan Abel <ra*******@gmail.comwrote:
>>And, regardless, the fact that RFC 822 is the basis for all this means
that there are no headers that are valid for mail but invalid for
usenet, or vice versa.
RFC 1036 specifically indicates that Usenet uses a restricted subset
of RFC 822.
Yes - such restrictions as "the colon must always be followed by
a space" But RFC 1036 is no more a standard than USEFOR (it may be
'further along' - but... a document either is a standard or it is not,
there's no halfway about it), and USEFOR is more recent.
But anyway - in so far as an RFC can be considered a standard but an
internet-draft cannot:
RFC 1036 does not address how messages are to be interpreted by user
agents. It's about interchange, not meaning. And "Any unrecognized
headers are allowed, and will be passed through unchanged"
RFC 1036 also does not forbid any of the headers it doesn't mention
- "Any unrecognized headers are allowed, and will be passed through
unchanged." first of all, this business about passing through again
shows that this is a transport standard, not about the interpretation of
messages by end-user software. Also, RFC 822 states "As network mail
requirements dictate, additional fields may be standardized." Now, many
such fields are standardized, and are listed in RFC 2076. It goes
without saying that Content-Type is among them.
In article <sl*******************@rlaptop.random.yi.org>,
Jordan Abel <ra*******@gmail.comwrote:
>2006-10-25 <eh**********@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
Walter Roberson wrote:
>In article <sl******************@rlaptop.random.yi.org>,
Jordan Abel <ra*******@gmail.comwrote:
>>>MIME is part of usenet, and your insistence on living in the 70s does
not change that fact.
>Jordan, do I make personal judgemental comments such as
"living in the 70s" about -you-?
>My understanding was that usenet was first created in the 70s [as it
turns out, I'm apparently mistaken - it was in fact the 80s] - and your
opinion seems to be that it should remain set in stone, unchanging since
that day. It was not a personal judgement, it was an observation on the
consequences of your stated opinion.
"insistance on living in the 70s" is definitely a negative personal
judgement, not just "an observation". It is a phrase written for
emotive effect, not as a statement of objective fact nor as
a repetition of any statement I have made about myself. The technical
name for such phrases is "argumentum ad personam" or
"ad hominem abusive".
Is it really necessary to use ad hominem against someone who
has not used ad hominem against you?
--
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath
been already of old time, which was before us. -- Ecclesiastes
2006-10-25 <eh**********@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
Walter Roberson wrote:
In article <sl*******************@rlaptop.random.yi.org>,
Jordan Abel <ra*******@gmail.comwrote:
>>2006-10-25 <eh**********@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
Walter Roberson wrote:
>>In article <sl******************@rlaptop.random.yi.org>,
Jordan Abel <ra*******@gmail.comwrote:
>>>>MIME is part of usenet, and your insistence on living in the 70s does
not change that fact.
>>Jordan, do I make personal judgemental comments such as
"living in the 70s" about -you-?
>>My understanding was that usenet was first created in the 70s [as it
turns out, I'm apparently mistaken - it was in fact the 80s] - and your
opinion seems to be that it should remain set in stone, unchanging since
that day. It was not a personal judgement, it was an observation on the
consequences of your stated opinion.
"insistance on living in the 70s" is definitely a negative personal
judgement, not just "an observation".
No, it's not. You _did_ insist on not allowing any progress since the
state of what usenet had been like in - well, what turned out to have
been the 80s rather than the 70s, but surely you would have been just as
offended if i'd said that instead.
It is a phrase written for emotive effect,
That doesn't mean it is in any way personal - it is not you I dislike,
it is your views. that's the opposite of "personal".
not as a statement of objective fact nor as
a repetition of any statement I have made about myself.
It is a rephrasing of your _apparent_ insistence that no usenet standard
that was made after some arbitrary date [which I mistakenly believed to
have been in a different decade than it was] should be observed.
The technical
name for such phrases is "argumentum ad personam" or
"ad hominem abusive".
Is it really necessary to use ad hominem against someone who
has not used ad hominem against you?
Actually - ad hominem would be if I said something personal about you
that was true but irrelevant, like if [assuming I knew of it] i brought
your political affiliations into the argument in order to use that as
"evidence" that you were wrong. You seem to be saying that what I said
was false (when in reality you have simply misinterpreted my meaning),
not that it is irrelevant.
In fact, supposing that "insisting on living in the 70s" is a bad thing,
and that you did in fact do so [perhaps by illicit use of a time
travelling device], it would be ad hominem if I said "he insists on
living in the 70s so we shouldn't do what he says even though it has
nothing to do with time periods or anything" - this would if anything be
the exact opposite of ad hominem, particularly given that "you insist on
living in the 70s" is not what i'm trying to prove.
Jordan Abel wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
In other words, a usenet user agent MUST properly decode a
multipart message and display the appropriate part(s) (since this
was an "alternative" message, the appropriate part would be the
text/plain part for a user-agent that cannot handle text/html).
This all started because someone's user agent failed to do so,
and he or she decided to blame the sender instead of his or her
own faulty newsreader.
That is not the point. The point is that html is dangerours to
unwary systems and operators. This started not because my
newsreader cannot read html, but because I have taken the
precaution of forbidding it to do so, for security reasons, and I
advised the OP of the situation. HTML does not belong in news
groups, and I will not read HTML email either. Just because you
can step out your back door and urinate on the geraniums does not
mean that that is an advisable thing to do.
MIME is part of usenet, and your insistence on living in the 70s
does not change that fact. I would argue that even _attachments_
(that is, multipart/mixed) are legal in all newsgroups, as long
as the attachments themselves are text types. I think it would
not be out of line for someone to post a message with an
attachment of type text/x-csrc or text/x-chdr, for example.
Some newsgroups allow it. However the consensus here is no. In
addition the addition of attachments reduces the number of servers
carrying your article, inasmuch as the better servers will simply
delete any article carrying an attachment. This also means they
will not propagate it to further servers. Since you write the
article with the intent of having others read it (unless you are
only trying to annoy) attachments defeat your own purpose.
We are not simply being obstinate antediluvians. HTML works quite
well on the www (except when misused, which is often). It has its
place, which is not here.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
CBFalconer wrote:
>
Jordan Abel wrote:
... snip ...
In other words, a usenet user agent MUST properly decode a
multipart message and display the appropriate part(s) (since this
was an "alternative" message, the appropriate part would be the
text/plain part for a user-agent that cannot handle text/html).
This all started because someone's user agent failed to do so,
and he or she decided to blame the sender instead of his or her
own faulty newsreader.
That is not the point. The point is that html is dangerours to
unwary systems and operators. This started not because my
newsreader cannot read html, but because I have taken the
precaution of forbidding it to do so, for security reasons, and I
advised the OP of the situation. HTML does not belong in news
groups, and I will not read HTML email either. Just because you
can step out your back door and urinate on the geraniums does not
mean that that is an advisable thing to do.
.... snip ...
I see I invented a new word - dangerours. Will it become wildly
popular? Time will tell.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
On 25 Oct 2006 14:06:05 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<ra****@random.yi.orgwrote:
>2006-10-24 <jh********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre wrote:
because html is an executable file format,
No, it's not. What ever gave you the idea that it was?
Because it is. Whatever makes you think it isn't?
Its interpreted, to be sure, but then so are shell scripts, and I
strongly suspect people consider those an executable format.
>HTML is no more an executable format than JPEG. (and, I chose the example of JPEG for
a specific reason - can you guess what it is?)
Because its also been used as a delivery vector for viruses?
>and many other mime types are frequently used to deliver virus payload.
That's hardly relevant to this discussion.
I disagree, and consider it disingenuous to ignore the point.
--
Mark McIntyre
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
On 25 Oct 2006 14:12:59 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<ra****@random.yi.orgwrote:
>2006-10-24 <eh**********@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
Walter Roberson wrote:
>Jordan Abel <ra*******@gmail.comwrote:
>>>It's entirely unclear to me why not. IIRC the only format restriction on
usenet is that binary (i.e. anything whose mime type would not begin
"text/") is not acceptable in non-binary groups.
You don't RC (Recall Correctly).
Except where specifically permitted by charter, newsgroups messages
shall not be encoded.
Text is text, binary is binary,
Actually, they're both binary.
--
Mark McIntyre
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
On 25 Oct 2006 20:54:15 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<ra****@random.yi.orgwrote:
>2006-10-25 <eh**********@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
Walter Roberson wrote:
>>
"insistance on living in the 70s" is definitely a negative personal
judgement, not just "an observation".
No, it's not.
Yes it is. Saying it aint won't make it so.
>It is a phrase written for emotive effect,
That doesn't mean it is in any way personal -
Come now, don't be disingenuous. Of /course/ it was personal.
--
Mark McIntyre
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
2006-10-25 <45***************@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer wrote:
Jordan Abel wrote:
>>
... snip ...
>>
In other words, a usenet user agent MUST properly decode a
multipart message and display the appropriate part(s) (since this
was an "alternative" message, the appropriate part would be the
text/plain part for a user-agent that cannot handle text/html).
This all started because someone's user agent failed to do so,
and he or she decided to blame the sender instead of his or her
own faulty newsreader.
That is not the point. The point is that html is dangerours to
unwary systems and operators. This started not because my
newsreader cannot read html, but because I have taken the
precaution of forbidding it to do so,
So why didn't it just display the plain text version?
for security reasons,
Do you forbid your web browser from displaying html as well?
But I digress
aiind I advised the OP of the situation.
I don't like html either - and in fact my newsreader _can't_ handle it,
and it apparently can't handle multipart (which annoys me) - I was just
pointing out the fact that there's apparently no actual rule against it
(lacking a charter, CLC must fall back to "is it binary or is it not"
and text/html is not binary, it's ascii, and "is it on-topic" - IIRC the
original message was, at least insofar as anything posted here anymore
is) and maybe there should be. I wouldn't have posted at all if not for
the _other_ issue. (I wouldn't mind if text/enriched became more common,
it can at least be handled sensibly by stripping out all the tags, but
i digress)
HTML does not belong in news groups, and I will not read HTML email
either.
Yet, again, you'll read html webpages.
>
We are not simply being obstinate antediluvians. HTML works quite
well on the www (except when misused, which is often). It has its
place, which is not here.
We're talking about _three_ separate issues now:
The use of HTML (which, i'll freely admit, I was only arguing for it to
be contrary. Without the fact that I was replying anyway, I wouldn't
have even mentioned it. after all, text/enriched has most of the
benefits and is quite a bit safer - now if only it were better
supported). Though why you think what's good for the www isn't good for
anyplace else is a bit odd - security reasons? then surely you stay off
the www entirely, so how would you know what works well on it?
The use of attachments (and it's unclear _why_ servers drop messages
with attachments, rather than, say, dropping messages with BINARY
attachments) and the misconception that attachment means binary. An
attachment, of a text file, is just a fancy machine-readable "cut here"
line, and there's absolutely no reason they should be forbidden or
dropped. The fact that they are is nothing more than an unfortunate
configuration error.
And your somewhat ridiculous "don't use mime types" line. What, not even
text/plain? despite strong (and possibly deserved) opposition against
html, the mime infrastructure is much more than that, and quoted-
printable, format=flowed, and other mime-ish things have long since won
their rightful place on usenet.
--
Random832, signing off with another machine-readable "cut here" line.
0d0a2d2d200d0a
2006-10-25 <lb********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 14:06:05 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<ra****@random.yi.orgwrote:
>>2006-10-24 <jh********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre wrote:
because html is an executable file format,
No, it's not. What ever gave you the idea that it was?
Because it is. Whatever makes you think it isn't?
Its interpreted, to be sure, but then so are shell scripts, and I
strongly suspect people consider those an executable format.
So do you think text is an executable format? After all, it contains
commands like "back space" and "carriage return". Or even *gasp*
"display LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A at the current position and advance the
cursor"
HTML does not have anything that would be considered 'executable code'
(now, there's javascript, but that's not part of html. and it can be
ignored.)
Jordan Abel wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
The use of HTML (which, i'll freely admit, I was only arguing for
it to be contrary. Without the fact that I was replying anyway, I
wouldn't have even mentioned it. after all, text/enriched has most
of the benefits and is quite a bit safer - now if only it were
better supported). Though why you think what's good for the www
isn't good for anyplace else is a bit odd - security reasons? then
surely you stay off the www entirely, so how would you know what
works well on it?
I'm not especially afraid of HTML coming into my machinery. I have
(I hope) the dangers under control. But I want to discourage its
use because it can and has been used to install uglies on other
machines, which are then used to send emails and what not here and
there. The result is more spam and more things to protect against.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 14:06:05 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<ra****@random.yi.orgwrote:
2006-10-24 <jh********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre wrote:
because html is an executable file format,
No, it's not. What ever gave you the idea that it was?
Because it is. Whatever makes you think it isn't?
The fact that it specifies what is to be displayed, never what is to be
executed? It's a markup language, not an executable language.
Don't tell me you confuse BrokenScript with HTML...
Richard
On 26 Oct 2006 03:02:46 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<ra****@random.yi.orgwrote:
>2006-10-25 <lb********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre wrote:
>On 25 Oct 2006 14:06:05 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<ra****@random.yi.orgwrote:
>>>2006-10-24 <jh********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre wrote:
because html is an executable file format,
No, it's not. What ever gave you the idea that it was?
Because it is. Whatever makes you think it isn't?
Its interpreted, to be sure, but then so are shell scripts, and I
strongly suspect people consider those an executable format.
So do you think text is an executable format?
What I think is that ther's no such thing as an executable format.
Whether its executable depends on the OS. Is a PE file executable on
MVS? Is a Windows DLL executable on Solaris? Is a bash script
executable on Windows? Which sort of .com file runs on VMS and which
on CPM?
The executability of a file isn't defined by whether its "text" or
"binary" but by the environment you insert it into.
But this is all fairly offtopic, and try as I might I can't get it
even obTopical.
--
Mark McIntyre
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 07:35:30 GMT, in comp.lang.c , rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:
>Don't tell me you confuse BrokenScript with HTML...
Since I have no idea what you refer to as BrokenScript, out of all the
vast array of scripting languages one can use inside webpages, I can
safely say that I do not. By the way, please don't bother to explain
to me which one /is/ BrokenScript, I really don't want to know.
--
Mark McIntyre
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote: rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:
Don't tell me you confuse BrokenScript with HTML...
Since I have no idea what you refer to as BrokenScript,
Whichever broke a web page today. May be any of them.
Richard
CBFalconer schrieb:
CBFalconer wrote:
>>Jordan Abel wrote:
... snip ...
... snip ...
I see I invented a new word - dangerours. Will it become wildly
popular? Time will tell.
already 18500 google hits...
2006-10-26 <3r********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre wrote:
What I think is that ther's no such thing as an executable format.
The executability of a file isn't defined by whether its "text" or
"binary" but by the environment you insert it into.
There is also the matter of whether the file contains instructions to be
carried out or not.
But this is all fairly offtopic, and try as I might I can't get it
even obTopical.
obTopical: C source code may be an "executable format" by the definition
I gave above. Discuss.
On 27 Oct 2006 15:45:01 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<ra****@random.yi.orgwrote:
>2006-10-26 <3r********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre wrote:
>What I think is that ther's no such thing as an executable format.
The executability of a file isn't defined by whether its "text" or
"binary" but by the environment you insert it into.
There is also the matter of whether the file contains instructions to be
carried out or not.
.... which are absolutely defined by the environment. If you're unsure
about this, try copying .com files from VMS to DOS.
>obTopical: C source code may be an "executable format" by the definition
I gave above. Discuss.
Shant.
--
Mark McIntyre
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
2006-10-27 <ra********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre wrote:
On 27 Oct 2006 15:45:01 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<ra****@random.yi.orgwrote:
>>2006-10-26 <3r********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre wrote:
>>What I think is that ther's no such thing as an executable format.
The executability of a file isn't defined by whether its "text" or
"binary" but by the environment you insert it into.
There is also the matter of whether the file contains instructions to be
carried out or not.
... which are absolutely defined by the environment. If you're unsure
about this, try copying .com files from VMS to DOS.
The instructions are there regardless whether or not the environment can
understand them. In the case of an html file, there are no instructions.
I.e. something cannot be considered an executable format if it does not
have the potential to be "executed" on any system because it does not
contain any text to be interpreted as instructions to be carried out.
Jordan Abel <ra****@random.yi.orgwrites:
[...]
The instructions are there regardless whether or not the environment can
understand them. In the case of an html file, there are no instructions.
I.e. something cannot be considered an executable format if it does not
have the potential to be "executed" on any system because it does not
contain any text to be interpreted as instructions to be carried out.
HTML contains instructions to be carried out in a limited context
(display this text in boldface, display this image, etc.). It cannot,
as far as I know, specify arbitrary computations.
The question of whether this does or does not make it an "executable
format" is neither topical nor, IMHO, particularly interesting. (It's
really a question about the meaning of "executable format".)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
2006-10-27 <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson wrote:
Jordan Abel <ra****@random.yi.orgwrites:
[...]
>The instructions are there regardless whether or not the environment can
understand them. In the case of an html file, there are no instructions.
I.e. something cannot be considered an executable format if it does not
have the potential to be "executed" on any system because it does not
contain any text to be interpreted as instructions to be carried out.
HTML contains instructions to be carried out in a limited context
(display this text in boldface, display this image, etc.).
No. it contains bold text, or, rather, markup indicating that a region
of text is bold. Tag soup has _never_ been an appropriate way to
interpret html. HTML is not a programming language.
It cannot, as far as I know, specify arbitrary computations.
The question of whether this does or does not make it an "executable
format" is neither topical nor, IMHO, particularly interesting. (It's
really a question about the meaning of "executable format".)
Eh. I think it was at least entertaining to see someone advance the idea
that there is no such thing as an executable format to support the
position that HTML is one.
Anyway - the idea that HTML (as opposed to javascript) is executable is
merely incorrect. The idea that HTML can be a security risk in one
medium (usenet) but not in another (www), on the other hand, is
absolutely ludicrous. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: mike420 |
last post by:
I think everyone who used Python will agree that its syntax is
the best thing going for it. It is very readable and easy
for everyone to learn. But, Python does not a have very good
macro...
|
by: Scott J. Chlebove |
last post by:
I am running a PL/SQL module in which I do the following....
BEGIN
DBMS_OUTPUT.enable(1000000);
-- Open file for writing.
OutfileHandler1 := UTL_FILE.FOPEN(wc_file_path, wc_output_file1,...
|
by: John Perks and Sarah Mount |
last post by:
When handling resources in Python, where the scope of the resource is
known, there seem to be two schools of thought:
(1) Explicit:
f = open(fname)
try:
# ...
finally:
f.close()
|
by: nsd |
last post by:
HI ALL,
HERE I HAVE MADE USE OF SAME CURSOR DECLARATIONS AND USAGE IN THE
FOLLOWING TWO DB2 CODES .
BUT I AM GETTING AN ERROR IN THE FIRST CASE i.e CURSOR IN A SIMPLE
BLOCK.
SO I HAVE A...
|
by: ruca |
last post by:
Hi,
Can I call two script blocks for different languages in my ASP.NET code?
I have a button than when clicked it must open a popup window to return some
values for two other controls that I...
|
by: Rosario Morgan |
last post by:
Hello
Help is great appreciated in advance.
I need to loop through a file 6000 bytes at a time. I was going to
use the following but do not know how to advance through the file 6000
bytes at...
|
by: Paul |
last post by:
I've installed the Composite UI Application block.
However, I'm unable to open the Solution (using VS.NET 2005 - Standard
Edition).
Is this becuase I need VSTS to open the Composite UI...
|
by: =?Utf-8?B?UmljaA==?= |
last post by:
Is it possible to find the end of an If block in VB2005 -- similar to C#
where in C# if you place your cursor next to a bracket and press ctrl
something it highlights the ending bracket? I have...
|
by: =?Utf-8?B?U2F2dm91bGlkaXMgSW9yZGFuaXM=?= |
last post by:
Is it right when placing the RETURN statement inside the TRY or inside the
CATCH statement, when there is a FINALLY clause? Especially when there is a
transaction going on, in the try/catch block?...
|
by: HillBilly |
last post by:
This is freaking me out. I'm using Membership and trying to determine if the
database is online. The GetConnectionString( ) method returns a connection
string as expected but not when used in the...
|
by: Charles Arthur |
last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
| |
