Well apparently not since one can step thru template code with a debugger.
But if I was willing to make the concession on debugging, templates would be
strictly a precompiler thing? I have a feeling the answer I'm going to get
back will be "no, because templates have taken on a life of their own since
their original conception and now also affect compiler implementation"
(read: not good, IMO.
John
Jun 11 '07
104  4418 
On 2007-06-15 14:00, JohnQ wrote:
"James Kanze" <ja*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@p77g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
On Jun 14, 11:15 am, "JohnQ" <johnqREMOVETHISprogram...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[snip]
Maybe I feel like making a little stand that
English newsgroups should be 7-bit ASCII. (Though the problem has not
yet
been identified).
>"You can't write correct English in just 7-bit ASCII. Words like
"naove" still cause problems."
>Did you mean 'naive'? Are you suggesting that an English word
has an umlaut?
"The correct spelling in English uses a diaeresis over the i, at
least according to my dictionaries. In North American English,
it's optional; in British English, it's required."
"Like most languages, correctly typeset English requires more
characters than are available on a standard typewriter keyboard
(or in US ASCII), and so adopts compromizes when the characters
aren't possible. In the 1970's, we accepted such compromizes in
computer text. Today, much less so."
Well that's the first time that I've heard that the English alphabet has
more than 26 characters. Someone better contact all the grade schools across
the USA and clue them in.
There's no more than 26 characters, the diacritics are added to the
letters, so ï is an i with an umlaut (by the way, the dot above the i is
in itself a diacritic added to distinguish it as a separate letter in
the days of pretty handwriting).
It's true that they are not very common in the English language (much
due to the fact that it made it harder when printing since they needed
many variations of most of the vowels, in Greece they needed 13
different versions of the letter alpha before they reform in 1982, and
later the limitations of they keyboards and character sets of
computers). But that does not make them not part of the English language.
Well, at least that's what Oxford claims.
[snip]
"but it isn't what I want to post, either. Somethings not behaving the way
it should
be, even before the message gets to you."
Either Erik Wikström is using the same newsreader as you are or there's some
kind of commonality in handling the 8-bit character-laden articles (encoding
the article) by servers or certain servers. It will be interesting to see if
this post of mine, with the 8-bit characters, results in the same problem.
Yes, I've also been using Google Groups.
--
Erik Wikström
"Erik Wikström" <Er***********@telia.comwrote in message
news:Nr****************@newsb.telia.net...
On 2007-06-15 14:00, JohnQ wrote:
>"James Kanze" <ja*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@p77g2000hsh.googleg roups.com...
On Jun 14, 11:15 am, "JohnQ" <johnqREMOVETHISprogram...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[snip]
>Maybe I feel like making a little stand that
English newsgroups should be 7-bit ASCII. (Though the problem has not
yet
been identified).
>>"You can't write correct English in just 7-bit ASCII. Words like
"naove" still cause problems."
>>Did you mean 'naive'? Are you suggesting that an English word
has an umlaut?
"The correct spelling in English uses a diaeresis over the i, at
least according to my dictionaries. In North American English,
it's optional; in British English, it's required."
"Like most languages, correctly typeset English requires more
characters than are available on a standard typewriter keyboard
(or in US ASCII), and so adopts compromizes when the characters
aren't possible. In the 1970's, we accepted such compromizes in
computer text. Today, much less so."
Well that's the first time that I've heard that the English alphabet has
more than 26 characters. Someone better contact all the grade schools
across the USA and clue them in.
There's no more than 26 characters, the diacritics are added to the
letters, so ï is an i with an umlaut (by the way, the dot above the i is
in itself a diacritic added to distinguish it as a separate letter in the
days of pretty handwriting).
It's true that they are not very common in the English language (much due
to the fact that it made it harder when printing since they needed many
variations of most of the vowels, in Greece they needed 13 different
versions of the letter alpha before they reform in 1982, and later the
limitations of they keyboards and character sets of computers). But that
does not make them not part of the English language.
I'd have to say that something that I wasn't taught as being part of the
language, isn't. Are you saying that it was/is an error of omission?
Well, at least that's what Oxford claims.
[snip]
>"but it isn't what I want to post, either. Somethings not behaving the
way it should
be, even before the message gets to you."
Either Erik Wikström is using the same newsreader as you are or there's
some kind of commonality in handling the 8-bit character-laden articles
(encoding the article) by servers or certain servers. It will be
interesting to see if this post of mine, with the 8-bit characters,
results in the same problem.
Yes, I've also been using Google Groups.
My post with your name in it with 8-bit characters worked fine for me. The
encoding shown in the headers is "8bit". Funny how Google Groups (the ones
who archive this stuff) are likely the ones causing the quality of the
system to be reduced. They need to be notified: "Hey Google! It's either
US-ASCII or UTF-8! Get with the program!". (Though I'd still prefer 7-bit
:) ).
John
"Erik Wikström" <Er***********@telia.comwrote in message
news:oW****************@newsb.telia.net...
On 2007-06-15 07:08, JohnQ wrote:
>"James Kanze" <ja*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@d30g2000prg.googleg roups.com...
On Jun 12, 1:40 pm, "JohnQ" <johnqREMOVETHISprogram...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>>"James Kanze" <james.ka...@gmail.comwrote in message
"And the problem doesn't seem to be the characters themselves,
because I modified my .sig in one posting, to remove them. The
problem is, I think, one of the headers, probably inserted by
Google."
From Wikipedia:
"Quoted-printable, or QP Encoding, is an encoding using printable
characters (i.e. alphanumeric and the equals sign "=") to transmit 8-bit
data over a 7-bit data path. It is defined as a MIME content transfer
encoding for use in Internet e-mail."
"Lines of quoted-printable encoded data must not be longer than 76
characters. To satisfy this requirement without altering the encoded
text, soft line breaks may be added as desired. A soft line break
consists of an "=" at the end of an encoded line, and does not cause a
line break in the decoded text."
So that probably means that if there are 8-bit characters in the message
being encoded, the line breaks are probably being converted also and
being moved forward like that. So, the 8-bit characters are messing up
the concept of "lines ending in CR/LF" that newsreaders are expecting.
Should OE be able to handle quoted-printable? Maybe, but as far as I can
tell, news articles should only contain characters 1-127 of the ASCII
character set (RFC 822). So, if something is encoding your articles into
quoted-printable based upon the extended (illegal) characters (the same
thing happens with other peoples' articles that have extended characters
in them, I have noticed), well.. "if it hurts when you do that, don't do
that!".
Actually the bodies of the message shall be UTF-8:
This specification extends NNTP from US-ASCII [ANSI1986] to UTF-8
[RFC3629]. Except in the two areas discussed below, UTF-8 (which is
a superset of US-ASCII) is mandatory, and implementations MUST NOT
use any other encoding.
Headers though should be in US-ASCII and the char-set of the message shall
be indicated in the headers using MIME.
I have no idea what this implies about the standards conformance of OE or
google groups, and I should point out that RFC3977 is quite new, so
there's a high probability that there are some implementations out there
that don't follow it (especially OE I would imagine considering MS's track
record of standards conformance and that OE6 is quite old and probably
just barely maintained).
So quoted-printable is a no-no and need not be supported in newsreaders, as
i understand. I wonder if OE handles UTF-8 correctly.
>
--
Erik Wikström
John
On 2007-06-15 23:44, JohnQ wrote:
"Erik Wikström" <Er***********@telia.comwrote in message
news:Nr****************@newsb.telia.net...
>On 2007-06-15 14:00, JohnQ wrote:
>>"James Kanze" <ja*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@p77g2000hsh.google groups.com...
On Jun 14, 11:15 am, "JohnQ" <johnqREMOVETHISprogram...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[snip]
>>Maybe I feel like making a little stand that
English newsgroups should be 7-bit ASCII. (Though the problem has not
yet
been identified).
"You can't write correct English in just 7-bit ASCII. Words like
"naove" still cause problems."
Did you mean 'naive'? Are you suggesting that an English word
has an umlaut?
"The correct spelling in English uses a diaeresis over the i, at
least according to my dictionaries. In North American English,
it's optional; in British English, it's required."
"Like most languages, correctly typeset English requires more
characters than are available on a standard typewriter keyboard
(or in US ASCII), and so adopts compromizes when the characters
aren't possible. In the 1970's, we accepted such compromizes in
computer text. Today, much less so."
Well that's the first time that I've heard that the English alphabet has
more than 26 characters. Someone better contact all the grade schools
across the USA and clue them in.
There's no more than 26 characters, the diacritics are added to the
letters, so ï is an i with an umlaut (by the way, the dot above the i is
in itself a diacritic added to distinguish it as a separate letter in the
days of pretty handwriting).
It's true that they are not very common in the English language (much due
to the fact that it made it harder when printing since they needed many
variations of most of the vowels, in Greece they needed 13 different
versions of the letter alpha before they reform in 1982, and later the
limitations of they keyboards and character sets of computers). But that
does not make them not part of the English language.
I'd have to say that something that I wasn't taught as being part of the
language, isn't. Are you saying that it was/is an error of omission?
So, any English word that you have not yet been told that it's part of
the English language isn't? :-) As I said, the use of diacritics is
quite rare but it's not forbidden, as an example both café and cafe are
words in the English language, just as naïve and naive. Since most (if
not all) words that uses diacritics can be written without and since it
takes some extra effort to use them, they are mostly left out.
>Well, at least that's what Oxford claims.
[snip]
>>"but it isn't what I want to post, either. Somethings not behaving the
way it should
be, even before the message gets to you."
Either Erik Wikström is using the same newsreader as you are or there's
some kind of commonality in handling the 8-bit character-laden articles
(encoding the article) by servers or certain servers. It will be
interesting to see if this post of mine, with the 8-bit characters,
results in the same problem.
Yes, I've also been using Google Groups.
My post with your name in it with 8-bit characters worked fine for me. The
encoding shown in the headers is "8bit". Funny how Google Groups (the ones
who archive this stuff) are likely the ones causing the quality of the
system to be reduced. They need to be notified: "Hey Google! It's either
US-ASCII or UTF-8! Get with the program!". (Though I'd still prefer 7-bit
:) ).
Well, wouldn't be the first time they screwed up the newsgroups, I still
remember the problems with quoting not too long ago.
--
Erik Wikström
"Erik Wikström" <Er***********@telia.comwrote in message
news:yP****************@newsb.telia.net...
On 2007-06-15 23:44, JohnQ wrote:
>I'd have to say that something that I wasn't taught as being part of the
language, isn't. Are you saying that it was/is an error of omission?
So, any English word that you have not yet been told that it's part of the
English language isn't? :-)
Don't be an extremist.
As I said, the use of diacritics is quite rare but it's not forbidden, as
an example both café and cafe are words in the English language, just as
naïve and naive. Since most (if not all) words that uses diacritics can be
written without and since it takes some extra effort to use them, they are
mostly left out.
Just because some publisher of a dictionary decides to put perversions of
the language in their book doesn't make it part of the language. I recognize
only 26 unadorned characters as belonging to the English language.
Enough on this already, It is boring and off-topic.
John This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. |
