Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
XP is just a number
 
PerlMonks  

Re^11: Native newline encoding

by BrowserUk (Pope)
on May 28, 2012 at 18:59 UTC ( #972861=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^10: Native newline encoding
in thread Native newline encoding

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?


Comment on Re^11: Native newline encoding
Re^12: Native newline encoding
by sauoq (Abbot) on May 28, 2012 at 19:25 UTC
    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.";
      I didn't know there was a single RFC in question.

      That explains a lot.

      You didn't bother to read the post to which you responded, or follow the links it contained; just knee-jerked a pointless response to a closing comment that had little to do with the main text of that post.

      And now try to further distract with a bunch of meaningless, irrelevant statistics unrelated to anything in particular.


      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?

        I see. Well, in my defense, it was easy to read:
        Things (will) get far more messy once the RFCs start dealing with Unicrap.

        And think that by using the plural "RFCs" you were talking about more than one... like all of them in general. Or, at the least, all of them related to FTP.

        Of course, it's unlikely that the FTP RFCs will be greatly affected by "unicrap" because unicode is just binary.

        If you still don't see where I was coming from, there's no point in continuing. Truly.

        -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://972861]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others lurking in the Monastery: (12)
As of 2014-09-22 17:16 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    How do you remember the number of days in each month?











    Results (198 votes), past polls