From: Eugen Leitl (eugen@leitl.org)
Date: Thu Apr 18 2002 - 11:44:36 MDT
Good-bye.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Hermit wrote:
>
> [eugen 1]
> [Hermit 2]
> [eugen 3]
> [Hermit 4]
> [hr]
> [eugen 3] Your lines are overlong. I reformatted them manually, for time being.
>
> [Hermit 4] Perhaps it isn\'t so much a matter of lines being long as some understanding being short. Your confusion between information and presentation is regrettable. Information should not be saddled with spurious formatting data. Even a one week course in visual basic should teach that.
>
> [Hermit 4] My usual screens run at a horizontal resolution of 2000 pixels. When spurious line feeds are inserted into the text of mail, I end up being able to use a fraction of my useable screen area. The same happens when such mail is displayed on the web. In addition, my WAP compliant handheld automatically reformats streamed text (i.e. no spurious line feeds). When it meets a line feed it obediently does so. Because of this, your emails scroll for pages, as every second line is only one or two words long. Your advocacy of lame, non-RFC compliant posting methods indicates why standards are required. They also indicate why some people should stick with AOL accounts.
>
> [Hermit 2] I recommend to your attention - [url=http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=31;action=display;threadid=11526]FAQ: Hermitish mail mark-up and citation V2.1[/url]
>
> [eugen 3] Can\'t read it properly right now (the daystar too bright outside), but it it seems to apply to the web. I\'m not using the web for discussions, I use mailing lists, and I\'m reading this in pine (moving to mutt in the next few days).
>
> [Hermit 4] Daystar? WTF? You mean the sun?
>
> [Hermit 4] The CoV has used email for 7 years and have only recently begun to transition to a Web system. Thus the referenced document applies to an ASCII mail format with some new options available since transition to the web. While we could have standardized on SGML I think that our lightweight formatting is adequate for our needs and much easier to deal with. The formatting style functions in email as well as being HTML safe for display on the web. As most of us dislike anything but ASCII for email, the formatting is fully ASCII compliant.
>
> [Hermit 4] You can continue to use vi or even edlin to edit your mail if it gives you pleasure. After all, Pine is not much better. Alternatively, you could get a civilized mail client and you will find that most of your troubles will go away. As another alternative you could even get something ghastly like Outlook and yes, even that will work. If you insist on geriatric clients with kludgy interfaces, I suggest that you write a filter to make it suit your unusual needs. That way you can use columns of text exactly 8 characters wide and you please. It would not suit me, so please don\'t advocate that we rebuild our systems to suit your antediluvian preferences and contaminated concepts on how things \"ought\" to work.
>
> [eugen 3] This is deliberate. (I do currently web front end-driven UIs for a living).
>
> [Hermit 4] Given your lack of understanding about basic principles of systems design (and looking at your web sites, web design) do you not think that you should perhaps seek alternative employment? Do you insist that your users all work on a WAP compliant display 20 characters wide? Do they have to access your sites with a 40-column Braille teleprinter? Do you insist that everything you do should work on Lynx? If so how do you justify your use of an antiquated version of powerpoint for such a large proportion of your web site?
>
> [Hermit 4] Please visit [url=http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=25358]This Discussion on the BBS[/url]. Please note that the standards used there are fully CSS and HTML 4.01 compliant, and that the recommended email formatting is fully RFC compliant and natively supported by newer clients (and trivial to support in most older clients). Now examine this thread on the BBS. Change the screen width. As you change the screen width, the display width - and the width of my posts - also changes. See - like magic. Your posts remain in a pathetic corner of the display and stop expanding at a certain width. Why? Embedded line feeds. Which means that your data is less useful and less portable than mine. As new ways of presenting data are discovered, so my text will translate comfortably. Yours will remain stuck in ancient non-standard formats and be deservedly forgotten. Largely because it is more trouble than it is worth to determine where you wante!
> d line feeds and where you wanted a paragraph. Computers don\'t work well with ESP.
>
> [Hermit 2] According to the relevant and applicable RFCs (RFC 821, RFC 822 RFC 934, STD 11, RFC 1049, RFC 1341, RFC 1342, RFC 1343, RFC 1512, RFC 1521, RFC 1522, RFC 1590, RFC 2045, RFC 2046, RFC 2047, RFC 2048 and RFC 2049 (amongst others) being most relevant. An appendix in RFC 2049 describes differences and changes from previous versions.
>
> [eugene 3] Um, if you need that many RFC refs for your argument, there\'s something wrong with your argument.
>
> [Hermit 4] Not at all. I provided you with the material required to determine for yourself that since email was first formalized your assertions that:
> [quote][eugen 1] The canonical line length, of course <80 chars/line. Overlong URLs are permitted, of course.[/quote]
>
> and
> [quote][eugen 1] Line-wrapping, yes. Like-breaking, no. So if I want to quote you, the overlong lines will not be quoted correctly.[/quote]
>
> [Hermit 4] were and are invalid then - and remain invalid today. You appeared to be arguing that you wanted “standard” email. I am the one proving that your unsupported assertions as to what those standards should be, are “compleat bullshit” (to use your delightfully archaic, not to say “low” or “common” expression).
>
> [eugen 3] And I don\'t see how <80 chars line breaks need to be covered in a RFC. Similiar that I don\'t need to be told to look first left than right when crossing the street. It\'s a basic survival skill.
>
> [Hermit 4] Hardly basic, surely? As noted above, good design separates content from format. That is basic. If your ridiculous and invalid conjoining of these issues is basic, why then, you appear to be saying that even the basics evade you. This is why the RFCs contain recommendations on these issues. So that lamers don’t have to figure it out for themselves.
>
> [Hermit 2] Presentation, including line wrapping, is the responsibility of the mail client, not the originator.
>
> [eugen 3] Most mail clients don\'t have problems with line wrapping. Nor does mine.However, we\'re talking about citations. Are you going to give me a line full of RFCs for citations, too?
>
> [Hermit 4] I’m not sure where you got the idea that we were discussing citations, please do a search for it above. You will not find it. Unfortunately you didn’t mention citations. You bitched, completely invalidly, like a shortchanged Newark whore about
> [quote] [eugen 1] Any reason why the quoting on most posts here is broken? (And the lines are overlong to boot)?[/quote]
>
> And when responded to in a pleasant fashion, you turned round and played Mr Knowitall with nothing but invalid assertions from authority. Well Mr eugen KnowNothing, I hope you enjoy having your petard detonated beneath you. So rather than “discussing citations,” I was addressing your erroneous assumptions about mail clients. However there are vast numbers of citations standards I could refer you to if you had only explained that you were having a problem with them. For the CoV the recommendations in [url=http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=31;action=display;threadid=11526]FAQ: Hermitish mail mark-up and citation V2.1[/url] are usually used, along with “bracketed quoting” as lamely interrupted by you, in the previous round. What was it you claimed to do for a living?
>
> [Hermit 2] [quote]In contrast with paper-based communication, it is interesting to note that the RECEIVER of a message can exercise an extraordinary amount of control over the message\'s appearance. The amount of actual control available to message receivers is contingent upon the capabilities of their individual message systems.\"[/quote]
>
> [eugen 3] This is a compleat bullshit. The amount of control the user can exercise stops at the capabilities of the mail client. Here you have to assume lowest common denominator, if you want to be inclusive. If you want to be pseudoelitist, that\'s another matter entirely.
>
> [Hermit 4] This is directly from RFC 822, and rather than “compleat bullshit,” it works for me (usually Kmail or Outlook). Speaking of the [b]lowest common denominator[/b], for a change, it appears that Micro$oft is RFC compliant – as it works for Hotmail, works for Outlook, and [i]even[/i] works for Outlook Express. Indeed it works for all the mail systems I use. Yet it doesn’t work for you. Perhaps the problem is not with the mail client at all, but with the user. Is this elitist? Hardly. Since you have already acknowledged that you know nothing about standards, please don’t expect me to acknowledge you as an expert or give your opinion too much weight. There is a certain degree of “low commonness” which I am quite pleased not to have to stoop to. It looks to me as if you may have established the watermark. Note too that customized clients - such as printing and the web also may be used. The RFC is very forgiving of presentation. It should be. It was designed that way.
>
> [Hermit 2] While line lengths are limited, the limitation is to [quote]1000 characters or less [RFC-821] [/quote] (of 7 bit ASCII, which implies that extended characters are not possible without escaping).
>
> [eugen 3] Those [quote] things [/quote] are extremely annoying. I hope you\'re not moving to XML markup anytime soon?
>
> [Hermit 4] I wonder why? XML has so many advantages that most of the world (bar, perhaps those suffering from calcification of the arteries) is moving in that direction. As it is, we are not likely to take that direction while anticipating that users will continue to perform mark-up manually or while transferring data via email. Instead we have a mark-up system so simple that it can be used by anyone prepared to examine examples, and may be used completely innocuously or may still perform complex markups while communicating via plain RFC compliant 7-bit ASCII. This has numerous other advantages. Our users don’t have to worry about HTML mail (unsafe) or about “unescaped HTML” getting onto a web page if the mail is posted there (a disaster). As there are grade school kids using this mark-up – and loving it, it should not, presumably be to difficult for an adult to figure out the basics. Particularly as that is all that is necessary for success.
>
> [Hermit 2] Hard line breaks are depreciated except at paragraph ends and alterations made by the system are intended to be removed prior to delivery.
> [quote]During transmission through heterogeneous networks, it may be necessary to force data to conform to a network\'s local conventions. For example, it may be required that a CR be followed either by LF, making a CRLF, or by <null>, if the CR is to stand-alone). Such transformations are reversed, when the message exits that network.[/quote]
>
> [Hermit 2] If your mail client is broken, you might consider reading and more particularly responding to posts on the bulletin board at [url]http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs[/url]
>
> [eugen 3] My mail client is not broken.
>
> [Hermit 4] Any mail client that cannot handle RFC 821/822 compliant posts is broken. Particularly when, as noted above, even Micro$oft manages to get it right.
>
> [eugen 3] Your assumption is.
>
> [Hermit 4] Which assumption? That you may have a broken mail client, or (and I was polite enough not to say this before) that you don’t know how to use it properly? That was not an assumption it was a rational conclusion, based on the evidence of your invalid whining. Seeing as I am not about to assist somebody who buts into a discussion with a series of complaints which conclusively prove that s/he doesn’t have a clue, to find a new mail client or learn how to use their existing one, I suggested that you might consider using a web browser as it provides an interface suitable for use by neophytes and experts – without requiring handholding.
>
> [eugen 3] If you require me to use a browser for discussion you\'ve lost me as a discussion participant.
>
> [Hermit 4] If this is your usual style, I promise you, you will not be missed.
>
> [eugen 3] I might be legally blind. I might be a wearable user. I might be a 3rd world user. I might be a security fanatic. All of this make browser use prohibitive.
>
> [Hermit 4] You might be a clown, a stand-up comic or a streets-sweeper. You have persuaded me that you surely are not a rocket-scientist, nor are you particularly polite. The point being that text formatted to match RFC 822 can be used with all of these interfaces without “strange” results. Text formatted the way you propose is far more problematic.
>
> [Hermit 2] As we have had discussions which go to 15 to 30 layers of nesting,
>
> [eugen 3] 15 to 30 layers of nesting is ludicrous. Regardless of markup, it is not possible to correctly attribute 30 layers of nesting even with a cinerama screen and elaborate color code.
>
> [Hermit 4] I quite agree. That was a significant reason for us adopting an alternative quoting style. One which I note has subsequently been adopted by large numbers of people – to the extent that even Micro$oft supports it as native in Outlook. I think you are stuck in a time-warp.
>
> [eugen 3] The deeper nesting levels are being routinely excised because they are no longer relevant to the current thread.
>
> [Hermit 4] So now you are the arbitrator of our discussions too? What business of yours is it whether we choose to make posts readable without having to work through a complete thread or not? The majority of our threads may be entered – even very late in a discussion and followed without overmuch difficulty. Try it on Usenet sometime. If you can find a post between the advertisements on Usenet these days.
>
> [Hermit 2] where a standard [b]65[/b] or [b]72[/b] column terminal using \">\" delimited indenting would use most of the line for the indentation, we tend to use an alternate style for all but the most trivial discussions. This is fully discussed at the above reference.
>
> [eugen 3] It would, except it doesn\'t. Because discussions involving 15 to 30 layers of nesting do not happen.
>
> [Hermit 4] Except that it has happened – in vast volume – on lists I have been a member of. Where none but the participants knew what was going on after about the fourth post. Not conducive to list discussion. So you are making yet another invalid assertion while not possessed of any facts. Do you make a habit of this?
>
> [eugen 3] If you base your assumption on ludicrously broken arguments no wonder you arrive at a system that is badly usable via legacy systems.
>
> [Hermit 2] Firstly, an argument is something with which you appear deeply unfamiliar. May I suggest that you treat yourself to some Monty Python, and in particular the “Argument sketch”. An argument is a sequence of connected propositions designed to establish a conclusion. “As we have had a problem and it involves these implications therefore we have taken these steps,” is a perfectly formed argument. Compare the above structure with: [quote] As we have had discussions which go to 15 to 30 layers of nesting, where a standard 65 or 72 column terminal using \">\" delimited indenting would use most of the line for the indentation, we tend to use an alternate style for all but the most trivial discussions.[/quote]. This is not a “ludicrously broken argument”. Rather, imagining that being contradictory and saying “is not” is to make an argument is ludicrous – and indeed is delightfully lampooned in the aforementioned Monty Python “Argument” sketch.
>
> [Hermit 2] In addition you will notice that I again refer to RFC 822 when I cited “standard 65 or 72 column terminal.” The standard, asserting that the client deals with wrapping, deals rather well not just with “legacy systems” but with special purpose systems as well. Your suggestion that “The canonical line length, of course <80 chars/line” does not. Thus I would suggest that your attempted smear fails to be persuasive by almost as wide a margin as your putative arguments.
>
> [eugen 3] Notice that the medium is self-selecting. Content-carriers are too smart to use broken media.
>
> [Hermit 4] Was this intended to be meaningful? If so, kindly expand on you thoughts and provide some facts to support your opinions. You have sufficiently demonstrated that your unsubstantiated opinions are very likely to be worthless.
>
> [Hermit 2] Where this style is not used, and the person writing has a significant contribution to make, one of the moderators may take it upon themselves to reformat their submissions.
>
> [eugen 3] Human intervention should not be required, period.
>
> [Hermit 4] In the best of all possible worlds, this would indeed be so. However, setting your Panglossian concepts aside, the majority of people here consider presentation to be important, as it attracts others to read what we have to say. For the write-only environments with which you appear familiar, this is possibly unimportant. On the other hand, people who only have restricted access or time, may well wish to make contributions – and if others consider them worthwhile, they might spend the time doing the needed formatting. A matter of meme-selection. Those items considered valuable by others, or where repairs are simple, tend to receive attention. You could choose to think of it as a form of quality filter.
>
> [Hermit 2] Unfortunately this takes a significant amount of work when the posters (who should know what they themselves said) could do it more easily. Their unwillingness to make their posts readable generally suggests that they have nothing worth saying as they are not particularly interested in readability or presentation. An impression that most virians prefer to avoid.
>
> [eugen 3] Funny, this is exactly the argument I was using against your citation practice. I\'ve only sampled a short time window in the list archives but there seems to be a steady decline in discussion quality. This also applies to legacy mailing lists, but this forum seems to be affected in an especially bad way.
>
> [Hermit 4] You are, of course, quite entitled to your opinion. And we are quite entitled to form an opinion of its worth. The majority of our membership does not appear to agree with you or your “special pleading.” I’d suggest you spend more time in the archives, hang around the list, make a few posts while pretending to be polite. You might learn something that way. How to recognize a convincing argument when it bit you for one, even if it takes a while longer to learn to make one.
>
> [eugen 3] I wonder if the medium is partly to be blamed.
>
> [Hermit 4] It was Bertrand Russell who said, “What are needed are notions, not notations.” But the notation on offer, supports people who just want to use ASCII email. It also supports those who want to have more control over what they produce.
>
> [Hermit 4] In that spirit, may I offer you a “klue” or two? Don’t attack people who offer friendly advice when you don’t know enough about a topic to give a valid opinion. Consider getting an updated mail client. Read the mark-up guide. Make a few posts from the BBS to learn what the mark-up format looks like. Try it a while. Look at the discussions on the suggestions list where some of this was discussed. And don’t try to stop others from attempting to improve the world simply because you are unable to cope with change. You anguished appeals appear to others as being distinctly Luddite in nature? Is this really the perception of yourself that you wish to impress upon the world?
>
> Evgeny, Ochen’ pechal’no vidit’ russkogo cheloveka do six por zastriavshego v sovetskom mentalitete I voobrazhaioushego, chto sovremennie mezhdunarodnie standarti I iprogress prinosiat vred.
>
> ----
> This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=25358>
>
-- -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO: N48 04'14.8'' E11 36'41.2'' http://www.leitl.org 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:46 MDT