Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Do you know where your variables are?
 
PerlMonks  

Re^9: Native newline encoding

by BrowserUk (Pope)
on May 28, 2012 at 17:53 UTC ( #972854=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^8: Native newline encoding
in thread Native newline encoding

Blah ...

Now who's "getting all epistemological".

What you should learn ...

What you need to learn is that your platform-bias bullshit is naught but the meaningless dogma of last resort.

If there were no platform differences, the subject of this entire thread wouldn't exist, but it does. And you can neither wish it away nor bullshit your way around it.


With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

The start of some sanity?


Comment on Re^9: Native newline encoding
Re^10: Native newline encoding
by sauoq (Abbot) on May 28, 2012 at 18:45 UTC
    What you need to learn is that your platform-bias bullshit is naught but the meaningless dogma of last resort.

    What platform bias?

    My bias is against poor design choices. And pretty much every platform has some design choices that I think are, at best, questionable.

    The design choice we are talking about will likely disappear in time. That's something to look forward to.

    This sub-thread was in response to your histrionics about RFCs getting "messy" with "unicrap". Your emotional language notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure the RFCs will remain the antithesis of "messy." Plenty of them, over the last 15+ years, have already been written with Unicode in mind. There's really no need for the gnashing of teeth and ringing of hands.

    -sauoq
    "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";

      The RFC in question mentions Unicode exactly twice. Both times in reference only to file names, not their content.

      And even for file names, and goes on to state: It is understood that the lack of well-defined semantics for file names may cause interoperability problems.

      As for emotions; the only emotions I see are your embarrassment at making an obvious cock-up, and your ever more desperate & puerile attempts to distract from it.


      With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

      The start of some sanity?

        The RFC in question . . .

        Which one is that? I didn't know there was a single RFC in question.

        And I didn't even post in the thread you linked to. (Update: I see you fixed the link, but I still don't see the "cock-up" you refer to. I think you are sadly confused. Salva's responses in this thread, btw, have only reinforced that I was answering the question he was asking.)

        Update: Approximate mentions of " UTF" or "Unicode" in RFCs by year.

        1992: 4 1993: 6 1994: 177 1995: 17 1996: 93 1997: 334 1998: 233 1999: 395 2000: 377 2001: 173 2002: 194 2003: 581 2004: 321 2005: 418 2006: 739 2007: 392 2008: 755 2009: 297 2010: 874 2011: 502 2012: 275

        -sauoq
        "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://972854]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others exploiting the Monastery: (3)
As of 2014-11-24 03:58 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My preferred Perl binaries come from:














    Results (135 votes), past polls