Olin Lathrop wrote:

> That time I was using Outlook Express on Windows 2000.  You may be right
> that it's broken, but I didn't wright it.  Go complain to Microsoft if
> it bothers you so much, but please stop whining about it to the wrong
> person.

I didn't complain. I'm pointing out to you that you are using a
non-standard program. The start of this whole thing was you complaining
("whining" in Olinese, the Language of the Rude) about some terminology
that wasn't "correct" (according to your own rules). Now here is a
standard, accepted both worldwide and also in the USA, you know your mailer
isn't conforming to the standard, and still keep using it... If you can't
see the irony, you just don't know what irony is.

>>> This is why I was curious what character code you sent for the omega.
>>
>> Which is what I've responded various times now. How often do you need it
>> being told? ISO-8859-7... is this so difficult?
> 
> I said character *code*, not the character set.  In other words, what
> the 8 bit value of the omega character was.

Look it up? The various emails that contain the symbol are out there in the
various piclist web mirrors, possibly in your Outlook Express, easy to find
for the minimally initiated.

>>> Once again, whether anyone likes it or not, if you want to be
>>> universally understood, stick to the 7 bit ASCII.
>>
>> Ah... how "universal" is this?
> 
> Other than a few machines in a museum that might use EBCDC (or however
> that is spelled), pretty universal.  Can you show me a single system in
> common use today that displays 7 bit ASCII incorrectly?

No. But the languages the majority of the "universe" speak don't fit into
ASCII. I wasn't trying to say that ASCII is not "universal" in the English
universe (it of course is), but the universe (without the "English", which
you didn't use) is just a tiny bit wider...  There are a number of
/languages/ that can't be displayed correctly in ASCII.

>> ASCII may be enough to spell American, but it's not enough for what most
>> people speak.
> 
> True, but that's not what I'm talking about.  

But this is what /I'm/ talking about. If you want to talk to me, you need
to at least consider that I'm taking part in the conversation.

> The point is that you can rely on it being displayed the way you expect,
> which is a bit less true of 8 bit character codes, and significantly
> less true for other than the "normal" 8 bit character set.  

I know. The main reason for this is that some people continue to use email
software that doesn't behave conforming to the existing standards. Back to
what I said before: these people fall roughly into two categories; the ones
who care about this and the ones who don't. The latter are the ones who are
permeating this state of affairs -- which they then use as an excuse.
Something like creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

>> Now here starts the trouble. There is no single standard 8 bit charset;
> 
> There effectively is.  I think its probably ISO-8859-1.  

AFAIK, this is the default charset in Windows (and it's also the default
charset for emails if no other charset is specified). There's that
difference between "default" and "standard"... you of all should know that,
with your attitude towards correct terminology and all. 

WRT email (which is what we're talking about here), there are a number of
standard charsets defined in the Mime spec, but only one of them is
default. (Actually two are default, ASCII and ISO-8859-1, depending on the
context where a default is needed.)

So please do use correct terminology. If you don't, you may get in trouble
with the bad guy of the mailing list. And nobody wants that...

> That's why I was curious what character code (not character set) you sent
> for omega.  I'm guessing I'll find the U-grave at that character code in
> ISO-8859-1, or whatever you call that standard.  

Throughout this whole thread, you're guessing an awful lot. You could just
look up the character code in the email, go to the Wikipedia page for ISO
8859 (for which I already spoonfed you the link), and you wouldn't have to
guess that much. This is the sort of attitude that you would harshly
criticize if someone else would present it... but then, that's nothing new
(neither you harshly criticizing, nor you not living up to the standards
you set for others).

> I have heard this character set referred to as ISO-Latin-<something>, and
> maybe that's the same as ISO-8859-1.  

You probably haven't; this is talking out of your something rather than
really contributing anything. This charset used to be called Latin-1, but
that name was never related to ISO. If you had the minimum of decency to go
to the web page that explains all this for the beginner in easy terms
before posting here about it, you wouldn't have to write all this
guesswork. Again, the attitude you request from others is not the attitude
you show.

How about RTFM before posting? Isn't that your preferred motto?

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist