arachne-digest Thursday, March 9 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1029 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 20:36:38 -0500 From: "Glenn McCorkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: OT: Troubles with military service On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 21:15:04 +0000, Charles Boisvert and Catherine Clinton wrote: > From that angle, your description of ordinary American life is very > informative, stupid as that sounds. Here, the nearest I've ever been to > a gun is on pictures. You may know that in the UK even the police doesn't > carry any. That makes me glad because guns only exist for one reason: > destruction... Despite the fact that nobody's armed, there are no armed > robberies ;-), no accidental gunshot wounds :), no fear of gun freaks :). > My sister is a hospital Doctor and she has never seen a gunshot wound - > probably never will. Here Amadou Diallo wouldn't have died, and the > police wouldn't have feared what he was searching for. For a while in > Manchester I remember drug dealers walking with a pit-bull on a lease. Now > they have to be muzzled (the pit-bulls I mean). That's how we live. > Charles Thank you Charles. Could this be the kind of "help" Michael was thinking of when he asked... On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 01:04:59 +0100, Michael Polak wrote: > Do you think Internet can help to achieve this goal ? BTW, I hope they are permitted to remove the muzzle for feeding purposes. Perhaps the dog might _like_ "drug dealer for dinner".<g> - -- Glenn McCorkle [EMAIL PROTECTED] North Jackson, Ohio, USA DOS prog. for QV cameras http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/qvplay.html Other stuff http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ Arachne, The Web Browser for DOS Open the 'DOOR' to the WWW. Keep the 'windows' closed. http://arachne.browser.org/ http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 14:22:39 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FreeCDP - plays MIDI, MP3, WAV, S3M, MOD, etc, etc Dev Teelucksingh wrote: > Here is something that might be useful for other Arachians : > > FreeCDP v1.1 http://members.aon.at/seal/index.htm > Plays MIDI,WAV,MOD,XM,S3M,JGM,UMX,MP3 and audio CDs. > > The size of CDP.EXE is 200K but you will probably need to > download SETUP.EXE (600K) to configure your sound card. > > Coded in DJGPP so it's for 386's and above. The latest version is 1.4 I have just downloaded it and run it. It automatically detected my SB16 soundcard, and just went ahead and played the midis I asked it to, and they sound: - JUST GREAT !!!!!!!!! :) Trust me! I am a musician. Oh boy ! At last ! I have been looking for this for a long time. :) The MIDI instruments actually sound like they are supposed to. :) Thank you, Dev, for the link. I have also been able to get CDP.EXE called from within Arachne by clicking on a MIDI link within a web-page on my hard disk drive. by adding the line to MIME.CFG: file/.mid |@CALL playmid.bat $1 and PLAYMID.BAT contains one line: c:\cdp\cdp.exe %1 However, the MOD player didn't work for me, and I haven't tried any of the other formats. It was always the MIDIs that mattered to me. Regards, Ron Clarke Ron Clarke http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/music.html - -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client - -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 21:04:10 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Improper HTML rendering of high ascii characters Hello: On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 05:16:58 -0500 (EST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Sam Heywood, > Your upper ASCII characters didn't come out right viewed in us-ascii, as your > header specified: They were viewed correctly before I sent them, and they were viewed correctly as I viewed my own posting on the list. > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit <snip> I don't understand this. It appears that not all list members are receiving upper ascii characters exactly as I send them. The characters I send ought to be the same characters you receive. If this is not the case, then there are some very serious errors somewhere. I hope somebody can please explain what might be wrong. Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 23:37:03 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: OT: Troubles with military service On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 21:15:04 +0000, Charles Boisvert and Catherine Clinton wrote: > That makes me glad because guns only exist for one reason: > destruction... This is another popular misconception about guns. Many firearms are designed specifically for recreational uses such as hunting, target shooting, and trap and skeet shooting. Most of these types of firearms would not be a suitable choice for either military use, or for personal defence, or even for criminal use. Some military firearms, such as sniper rifles, although designed for killing at long range, are also ideally suitable for a sportsman to use in the perfectly harmless recreational sport of target shooting. The sports arena has a history of several thousands of years in peaceful proficiency competitions with military weapons. Ever since the games began, the javelin throw has always been one of the main events. Many common everyday implements and tools such as hammers, knives, axes, and pitchforks were originally designed for killing. It does not follow that just because they were designed for killing that they should be banned, especially when so many constructive uses for them may be found. Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 01:25:26 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Fwd: The future of DOS Hello fellow Arachnids and SurvPC Folks: I have found a very interesting post in a newsgroup. As it is so very much on topic, I am forwarding same to both lists. All the best, Sam Heywood - ------------- forwarded message begins --------------- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Newsgroups: alt.msdos.programmer,alt.comp.shareware.nettamer >Subject: Re: The future of DOS >Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 14:39:19 GMT >Organization: MindSpring Enterprises >Lines: 40 >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >References: <899bmv$9km$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >NNTP-Posting-Host: c7.ae.97.ab >X-Server-Date: 6 Mar 2000 14:38:28 GMT >X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 >Xref: rQdQ alt.msdos.programmer:48009 alt.comp.shareware.nettamer:2798 On 2 Mar 2000 16:49:09 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Fischer) wrote: >Christophe R. Evans ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >: Well, i am still runnign PC DOS 7.01 and working on my own DOS called >: NX-DOS 8, (alpha is running on one machine) a kinda unix/dos >: intergration but w/ the ease of the dos CL instead of teh cornfusing >: linux script shells... I prefer dos and it feels like I am inthe >: minority.. > > You are not in the minority by far, even people >upgrading to more capable machines and GUI would like >to stay with DOS, but need one or more of the features >available with 32 bit, multitasking, etc. > > And there are other reasons for preferring DOS, >I stare at the screen too much, and having to use the >mouse and then enter keyboard data too, causes me to >stare too long without blinking enough, and I just got >over a dry eyeball and a resulting bursted blood vessel >(apparently not a big concern, but ugky and unwanted). > > I would very much like just a program loader, >something simple, I have found I have been spending >more time configuring, rebooting, reinstalling, and >recomfiguring, than I have doing the things I want >to do and need to do. > >Joe Fischer >-- >3 >3 There is a 32bit, Multitasking DOS operating system available. It is called Real/32. The company markets this OS as a realtime operating system but after checking out its specifications one will realize that it is quite suitable for the desktop enviornment. The company who produces it can be found at the following url http://www.imsltd.com/ and the company's name is Intelligent Micro Solutions, LTD. BTW, the operating system also has multiuser capability. I also ran across an internet site which gave some history of DR-DOS and it stated that DR-DOS and Real/32 share some history. I hope that this helps. - ----------- forwarded message ends ------------- - -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 07:58:18 +0100 (MET) From: Bernie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Quick cures don't work [was Re: Troubles with military service L.D wrote: >I'd like to point out a few facts that the general media in the USA like >to avoid mentioning: (snip) > More children die in the USA as the result of poverty -- slow >starvation, lack of proper clothing & shelter, lack of proper medical >care -- than die as the result of guns, knives, or other "weapons." IMVHO I think the problems with crimes often start from the lack of a working social service (the lack which you have very well pointed out BTW). I still can't imagine why the US citizens choose to let (so many) people live in the streets - or having two jobs just to get enough money to live. But on the other hand I doubt many people from the US can see why I gladly pay (when I make any money that is) ca 30% in taxes (and then another 25% in VAT). >So I don't want to hear anyone claiming that gun safety would solve all >the problems of this country, nor that disarmament would solve all the >problems of the world. I think that the diffrences (economical, socially etc.) between people are what we need to work on eliminating. Unless that is done people and countries will not stop hurting each other. In all the wars I can come to think about right now this has been the single reason why they have happened (except the wars involving Israel and the NATO-Serb war). >Now, that's enough about the military, guns, death and suffering. We >need to start working on increasing world-wide access to the internet. Most people on the earth haven't even used a phone, but I do agree with you - - although food, shelter and education is higher on my "wish list". But if I borrow a little from your line: >Now, that's enough about the military, guns, death and suffering. We >need to start... ...getting back on topic ;-) I'll just need to take a few quotes from my newspaper that I just saw (translated from swedish by me of course). (This has nothing to do with L.D's letter, it's the final words you'll see from me on this subject - atleast I hope so <g>). "The glorification of the nationalstate as the historys highlight, which only in it's name it's legal to kill and the only for which it's worthy to die, is over." ... "The state should serve the people, not the other way around." ... "Human freedom has a higher value then that of the states sovereignty." And who wrote this you might ask? V�clav Havel - president of the Czech republic If only things were as he want them to be in his own country, right Michael? Ok, this was perhaps a little out of context since he's mostly writing about NATO and the EU and how his - and other - countries will need to change in the 21st century. Still one should start by cleaning up by his/her own door first IMHO (you can't find me complaining that someone has a messy house/room <BG>). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 02:11:03 -0500 From: "Clarence Verge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Improper HTML rendering of high ascii characters On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 21:04:10 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > I don't understand this. It appears that not all list members are > receiving upper ascii characters exactly as I send them. The characters > I send ought to be the same characters you receive. If this is not the > case, then there are some very serious errors somewhere. > I hope somebody can please explain what might be wrong. Hi Sam; What we see depends not only on what you send, but what browser we view them with. I viewed your original post with both NS 2.02 and Arachne. The characters displayed looked reasonable to me in both. - Clarence Verge - -- Using Arachne 1.50b2 for a change. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 02:28:52 -0500 From: "Clarence Verge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Improper HTML rendering of high ascii characters On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 21:04:10 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > I don't understand this. It appears that not all list members are > receiving upper ascii characters exactly as I send them. The characters > I send ought to be the same characters you receive. If this is not the > case, then there are some very serious errors somewhere. > I hope somebody can please explain what might be wrong. I said: (without completing the explanation) Hi Sam; What we see depends not only on what you send, but what browser we view them with. I viewed your original post with both NS 2.02 and Arachne. The characters displayed looked reasonable to me in both. and I should have added: You send a code for some character - NOT a character. The numbers from 0 to 127 are each taken to represent a certain character in the ASCII standard. This doesn't have to be the case if you make up your own character set, and will work fine as long as the persons receiving the message have the correct dictionary. The numbers from 128 to 255 are interpreted differently depending on the browser and its' settings. Sorry I forgot the explanation last time. - - Clarence Verge - -- Using Arachne 1.50b2 for a change. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 09:41:52 +0100 (CET) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) Subject: Improper HTML rendering of high ascii characters Hi "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: SH> @Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII SH> @Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit The problem is here ... You say, that you only write 'normal' 7 bit ascii. But the special characters are 8 bit ascii ususally with charset iso latin1 >> Your upper ASCII characters didn't come out right viewed in >> us-ascii, as your header specified: SH> They were viewed correctly before I sent them, and they were viewed SH> correctly as I viewed my own posting on the list. Because your computer has the correct charset for that mail. (sure YOU sent it :) The trick is to tell us, what charset you used, and than our mail clients can convert the characters to our local charsets. >> MIME-Version: 1.0 >> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit SH> I don't understand this. It appears that not all list members are SH> receiving upper ascii characters exactly as I send them. Sure ... because some of us live in czech, some in notway, some in isreal ... and some of us use different codepages ! SH> The characters I send ought to be the same characters you receive. SH> If this is not the case, then there are some very serious errors SH> somewhere. There are no serious errors. The codes for the characters you send are the same, they are just INTERPRETED differently. (charset in MIME header tells us how you did interpret these characters, so we know what you wanted to type, but you tell us that you used US-ASCII which does _NOT_ contain high ASCII characters) SH> I hope somebody can please explain what might be wrong. I couldn't explain it very well, but I hope this helps ... SH> Sam Heywood CU, Ricsi - -- Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ICQ: 7659421] {RSA-PGP Key avail.} - -=> It's great to do nothing and rest afterwards <=- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 09:41:24 +0100 From: "Christoph Belitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Arachne 1.61 problems On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:42:57 +0200 Or Botton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote >Arachne 1.60 is still a problematic beta.. i'd stick with 1.50src. >It gave me trouble while downloading the mail too. Its good for >general browsing, though. There was a reason why Michael warned >about using it, in the Arachne page.. :) BETA-status means, that there are still many bugs, which need to be found! Just post your problems and we'll try to solve it ;) Regards, cb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 06:05:23 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Can anyone take me to a download for DR-WEBSPYDER ? (please help) NT I once downloaded DR-WebSpyder 2.4(?), though I forget the full URL; it was ftp with .private somewhere in between. It was evidently intended for set-top boxes rather than PCs. Only way to exit the program was to turn off the box. I couldn't get it to dial or otherwise do anything useful. If you are still interested, you can look at http://www.lineo.com, and if you don't find where to download DR-WebSpyder but find an email address, you might send an email inquiry. Thomas Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:15:39 +0100 (CET) From: "Bagnoli Franco ([EMAIL PROTECTED])" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: hi! I just subscribed to this mailing list. I am the system manager of the departmento of applied mathematics, university of Florence, Italy. I'm developing services for students trough the use of web servers, and I was looking for tools for building cheap kiosks. Arachne is almost perfect for it. I am experimentig with a 486 66MHz, 16MB ram (disk is only for booting, I plan to remove it in the future). For the moment I'm using dos, planning to switch to linux if performances are comparable. problems: Any suggestions to the design of html pages (with forms) so to speed up loading? Arachne seems to freeze for several seconds while loading even simple pages is it possible to customize the behavior of the suite (maybe in the commercial version?) I need to eliminate most of things that can allow people to destroy the kiosk !!! Franco Bagnoli Dipartimento di Matematica Applicata "G. Sansone" Universita' di Firenze, Via S. Marta, 3 I-50139 Firenze, Italy tel. +39 0554796422, fax: +39 055471787 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 17:02:28 +0100 (MET) From: Bernie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Troubles with military service L.D wrote: >I think you have this wrong ... And I had hoped I could get out of this now ;) > Arming people doesn't mean telling them to shoot first and ask >questions later. I agree, but arming people that think they should shoot first and ask questions later is dangerous. And that's what can easily happen when many people have fire arms. I also find it strange that you are allowed to have the weapons loaded, if they are securely locked in one place and all the amoo in another then stealing it isn't as easy. This was a reason why most weapons that were stold in the begining of the 90's here was taken from the military. (They have since been moved into the diffrent areas that can be supervised). >You can only >shoot when you feel you [or member of household] are/is in "right now" >danger of being killed ... not "beaten up" not "raped" -- only "killed." I'm not entirely sure of the legal situation - but I think that you can't shoot someone because you are afraid of beeing killed here. > That "if there are no legal guns" argument holds about as much >validity as someone saying I shouldn't own a car, because if I own a car >then some bad guy can steal it and kill someone while being chased by >cops, or driving drunk, or whatever. I don't think that's the same thing. A car's main function is to transport people. A guns main function is to kill (both can be used for other things of course - but so can everything). >You want a gun? Go to the right >park of the right street and you can buy an Ozzi -- and they are illegal >already. I think you need to add "in the right town" and perhaps "in the right country" as well to that. Not many people spend their times in a park around here (probably since the woods are so close by). >The majority of the people do not deserve to be, and should >not be denied freedoms, or otherwise punished, because of what "the bad >guys do. I think the reasons of our diffrent views come from the fact that you are living in a country (much from my point of view) on the right side and I (much from your point of view) on the left side of the politcal scale. The reason why guns should be kept at a minimum is to make sure no innocent people get hurt by them. It's just the same as the reason why I understand and agree with the law doesn't allow one person to take in as much alochol from the EU into Sweden as one can take into ex. Germany (or any other EU country). L.D perhaps we can agree on this: we disagree - and this debate has nothing to do with Arachne ;) (If you want we can continue it off-list). //Bernie http://bernie.arachne.cz/ DOS programs, Star Wars ... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 13:18:58 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: hi! On Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:15:39 +0100 (CET), Bagnoli Franco wrote: <snip> > is it possible to customize the behavior of the suite (maybe in the > commercial version?) I need to eliminate most of things that can > allow people to destroy the kiosk !!! <snip> Hello: If you have to contend with a threat of vandalism, then it doesn't matter what kind of PC or operating system or software you are running. To protect a publicly-accessible computer from a person inclined to do physically destructive things, then it would seem that your only option would be to encase your kiosk with steel and provide a very tough membrane type keypad and also install video cameras, like the banks do with their ATM machines. A great advantage of using Arachne at a public kiosk is that it will run very well on an inexpensive vintage PC. If someone does vandalize the kiosk, then the damages incurred would not be as great as you would otherwise suffer by setting up a modern pentium running the latest Windows software. Good luck on your proposed project. We would all like to see it go forward. Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 12:09:50 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Improper HTML rendering of high ascii characters On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 02:11:03 -0500, Clarence Verge wrote: > On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 21:04:10 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote: >> I don't understand this. It appears that not all list members are >> receiving upper ascii characters exactly as I send them. The characters >> I send ought to be the same characters you receive. If this is not the >> case, then there are some very serious errors somewhere. >> I hope somebody can please explain what might be wrong. > Hi Sam; > What we see depends not only on what you send, but what browser we > view them with. I viewed your original post with both NS 2.02 and > Arachne. The characters displayed looked reasonable to me in both. Yes, of course. This is something I do understand; however, whenever one views an email message as ascii text from the DOS console, the characters one should see ought to be the same as those that I have sent. Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 12:45:35 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Improper HTML rendering of high ascii characters On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 09:41:52 +0100 (CET), Richard Menedetter wrote: > "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > The codes for the characters you send are the same, they are just > INTERPRETED differently. > (charset in MIME header tells us how you did interpret these characters, > so we know what you wanted to type, but you tell us that you used US-ASCII > which does _NOT_ contain high ASCII characters) <snip> Hello Arachnids: All I know is that there are 256 characters in the standard ascii chart. Chacters are numbered zero thru 255. I don't know if there is a difference between US ascii and standard ascii. It is my understanding that the "higher" ascii characters are those that fall in the range between 128 and 255. This discussion is beginning to sound like an argument over where we should draw the line between the lower octaves and the higher octaves of a musical composition. There appears to be no universally accepted authority. Also I think it would be very nice if everyone would read from the same sheet of music. Then nobody would be singing off-key. It is only a matter of personal opinion and preference as to which key sets the best mood. It is universally agreed that if the members of the chorus cannot agree on which key to sing their tune, then the whole performance will sound positively awful. Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 20:15:41 +0100 From: "Joerg Bartels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: FreeCDP - plays MIDI, MP3, WAV, S3M, (patches ?) On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 14:22:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Dev Teelucksingh wrote: >> Here is something that might be useful for other Arachians : >> FreeCDP v1.1 http://members.aon.at/seal/index.htm >> Plays MIDI,WAV,MOD,XM,S3M,JGM,UMX,MP3 and audio CDs. >> The size of CDP.EXE is 200K but you will probably need to >> download SETUP.EXE (600K) to configure your sound card. >> Coded in DJGPP so it's for 386's and above. > The latest version is 1.4 > I have just downloaded it and run it. It automatically detected my SB16 > soundcard, and just went ahead and played the midis I asked it to, and they > sound: > - JUST GREAT !!!!!!!!! :) > Trust me! I am a musician. > Oh boy ! At last ! I have been looking for this for a long time. :) > The MIDI instruments actually sound like they are supposed to. :) > Thank you, Dev, for the link. > I have also been able to get CDP.EXE called from within Arachne > by clicking on a MIDI link within a web-page on my hard disk drive. > by adding the line to MIME.CFG: > file/.mid |@CALL playmid.bat $1 > and PLAYMID.BAT contains one line: > c:\cdp\cdp.exe %1 > However, the MOD player didn't work for me, and I haven't tried any of the > other formats. It was always the MIDIs that mattered to me. > Regards, > Ron Clarke > Ron Clarke http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/music.html > -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client > -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client You are right- nice .... but I think it would be better with these patches (when you look into setup.exe) wavetable? Where can I get this? regards, Joerg - -- Arachne V1.50;s.r.c., NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://home.arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 20:31:25 +0100 (CET) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) Subject: Improper HTML rendering of high ascii characters Hi "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The codes for the characters you send are the same, they are just >> INTERPRETED differently. >> (charset in MIME header tells us how you did interpret these >> characters, so we know what you wanted to type, but you tell us that >> you used US-ASCII which does _NOT_ contain high ASCII characters) SH> All I know is that there are 256 characters in the standard ascii SH> chart. NO!! ASCII are only the first 128 characters !!!! SH> Chacters are numbered zero thru 255. Yes (on most systems) but only the first 128 characters (7 bits) are standardized. The rest can be anything. (latin-1,latin-2, latin-x, russian,CP850, CP437 ....) SH> I don't know if there is a difference between US ascii and standard SH> ascii. No ... both are 7 bit (128 characters) SH> It is my understanding that the "higher" ascii characters are those SH> that fall in the range between 128 and 255. Exactly, and this range is NOT part of the ASCII standard ! SH> It is universally agreed that if the members of the chorus cannot SH> agree on which key to sing their tune, then the whole performance SH> will sound positively awful. But it is a matter of fact that this chorus CAN'T sing in tune ... I don't see you're problem ... If you use correct programs (recognize and use charset header) than you will not have any problems ... It is not possible to use one 8 bit codepage for all languages, Unicode IS a solution, but it is very cumbersome to implement it, and eg not possible on DOS. SH> Sam Heywood CU, Ricsi - -- Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ICQ: 7659421] {RSA-PGP Key avail.} - -=> Disease is the retribution of an outraged nature <=- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 21:10:56 -000 From: Mike Millen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Improper HTML rendering of high ascii characters SH> All I know is that there are 256 characters in the standard ascii SH> chart. RM> NO!! ASCII are only the first 128 characters !!!! Precisely. SH> I don't know if there is a difference between SH> US ascii and standard ascii. RM> No ... both are 7 bit (128 characters) "Both" are one and the same... ascii = American Standard Code (for) Information Interchange. In other words, Ascii *is* American. :) Mike ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 21:31:47 +0000 From: Charles Boisvert and Catherine Clinton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: hi! >Arachne is almost perfect for it. I am experimentig with a 486 66MHz, 16MB >ram (disk is only for booting, I plan to remove it in the future). Wonderful!! >For the moment I'm using dos, planning to switch to linux if performances >are comparable. There is no Linux-Arachne as yet. Linux+DOSEMU might be a possibility... Others on this list will know something of how well that works. Or you coould use Lineo/DR-DOS. >problems: Any suggestions to the design of html pages (with forms) so to >speed up loading? Arachne seems to freeze for several seconds while >loading even simple pages Turn off virtual screens, get all the memory you can below 640k and use a disk cache. Arachne help has some detailed information about customizing for speed. The disk cache is one more reason to use DR-DOS >is it possible to customize the behavior of the suite (maybe in the >commercial version?) I need to eliminate most of things that can >allow people to destroy the kiosk !!! I've seen mentions of customizing the buttens in the commercial versions. Charles ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 00:09:07 +0100 (CET) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) Subject: Improper HTML rendering of high ascii characters Hi Mike Millen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: SH>> I don't know if there is a difference between SH>> US ascii and standard ascii. RM>> No ... both are 7 bit (128 characters) MM> "Both" are one and the same... Sorry ... I should have written it more precisely ... Sam wrote that he don't know if there is a difference, and I said No, there is no difference .. MM> ascii = American Standard Code (for) Information Interchange. MM> In other words, Ascii *is* American. :) This is what I wanted to say :) MM> Mike CU, Ricsi PS: Is my signature correctly terminated ?? (--space) - -- Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ICQ: 7659421] {RSA-PGP Key avail.} - -=> Bigamist: One who makes the same mistake twice <=- ------------------------------ End of arachne-digest V1 #1029 ******************************
