arachne-digest Thursday, March 9 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1030
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 18:05:47 -0500
From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Improper HTML rendering of high ascii characters
On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 21:10:56 -000, Mike Millen wrote:
> 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)
There are many popularly accepted "standard" reference sources that show
an ascii table consisting of 256 characters. If ascii does indeed have
only 128 characters then there ought to be a footnote and explanation
about it in all of the "standard" reference sources. This is why we
have a problem. People do not agree on what are the "standard" rules and
what rules are merely "dealer's choice". Any set of rules may be agreed
upon, but all players must understand whose rules will regulate the game.
As I interpret what has been explained to me on this list, there are 256
ALT + NUM characters. The first 128 of these are ascii characters. All of
the the rest are "wild". If you are holding a wild character, you can call
it anything you want, just like in a card game, right?
In a card game it is easy for a player to declare the "value" of his wild
cards in a manner that all other players will readily understand. In email
it is very difficult to describe the "value" of an ALT + NUM character,
especially one that is greater than 128.
IMHO, there ought to be a "standard" universally accepted chart for all
256 ALT + NUM characters. Of course I realize that only 256 characters
will not be enough for all the world's languages, but 256 will suffice for
most European languages. Other languages may simply use some other system.
Sam Heywood
- -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 17:26:38 -0500
From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Improper HTML rendering of high ascii characters
On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 20:31:25 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> I don't see you're problem ...
> If you use correct programs (recognize and use charset header) than you
> will not have any problems ...
<snip>
I can foresee a problem. If the sender does not have his system set up the
the same way as the receiver, then there will be a problem, right?
Can the receiver easily switch his setup from one character set to another
without messing things up?
I really don't know anything about codepages and COUNTRY.SYS and stuff like
that. I just set up my DOS for its system default and go. This has never
caused any problems for me when sending messages in English to people who
understand English. I have a problem only when corresponding in Spanish.
The characters as received by both parties just aren't right. We can
usually figure out what each is trying to say, but it sure would be nice if
we could both just do it right.
Is there a way I can set up my Insight email, or any other email program so
that it will work correctly both for English as well as in Spanish?
Sam Heywood
- -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 00:25:31 +0100 (CET)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
Subject: Improper HTML rendering of high ascii characters
Hi
"Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SH> There are many popularly accepted "standard" reference sources that
SH> show an ascii table consisting of 256 characters.
These references do not show ASCII, but eg CP437 (standard DOS Codepage)
CP437 consists of:
0-127: standard ASCII
128-255: cp437 extension to ASCII
Almost all codepages differ only in the high ascii range.
eg cp850 (equivalent to iso-latin-1 in dos) consists of ASCII+cp850
extension ...
SH> If ascii does indeed have only 128 characters then there ought to be
SH> a footnote and explanation about it in all of the "standard"
SH> reference sources.
There IS :)
(if not than you have a really bad reference ... :)
SH> This is why we have a problem.
I still can't see the problem ...
SH> People do not agree on what are the "standard" rules and what rules
SH> are merely "dealer's choice". Any set of rules may be agreed upon,
SH> but all players must understand whose rules will regulate the game.
There are rules and these rules are accepted ...
SH> As I interpret what has been explained to me on this list, there are
SH> 256 ALT + NUM characters. The first 128 of these are ascii
SH> characters. All of the the rest are "wild".
No ... the rest depends on the codepage you use ...
They are also standardized. (mostly :)
SH> In email it is very difficult to describe the "value" of an ALT + NUM
SH> character, especially one that is greater than 128.
No ... absolutely not.
The Email consists of the values ...
and a line telling HOW TO INTERPRET THEM ...
(characterset latin-1, cp437 ...)
If you know what codepage the sender was using, you can show the characters
on your system correctly as well ...)
SH> IMHO, there ought to be a "standard" universally accepted chart for
SH> all 256 ALT + NUM characters.
There is a standard for most european languages.
(iso-latin-1 ...)
SH> Other languages may simply use some other system.
Exactly .. and this is how it works ....
for example there are 2 hungarian characters missing from latin-1, so
there's iso-latin2 containing all hungarian characters ....
SH> Sam Heywood
CU, Ricsi
- --
Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ICQ: 7659421] {RSA-PGP Key avail.}
- -=> The eyes are the mirror of the soul <=-
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 00:34:19 +0100 (CET)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
Subject: Improper HTML rendering of high ascii characters
Hi
"Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't see you're problem ...
>> If you use correct programs (recognize and use charset header) than
>> you will not have any problems ...
SH> I can foresee a problem. If the sender does not have his system set
SH> up the the same way as the receiver, then there will be a problem,
SH> right?
No ... because the sender tells the receiver HOW it was set up, so the
receiver can accomodate that !
SH> Can the receiver easily switch his setup from one character set to
SH> another without messing things up?
He should ... naturally it depends on the program.
(the mail client I use here does this great ...)
SH> The characters as received by both parties just aren't right. We can
SH> usually figure out what each is trying to say, but it sure would be
SH> nice if we could both just do it right.
SH> Is there a way I can set up my Insight email, or any other email
SH> program so that it will work correctly both for English as well as in
SH> Spanish?
I don't use Insight, but IMHO Michael has written something that Insight
has basic translation capabilities ...
I'm sure others using Insight will help you ...
What charset does the spanish sender use ??
IMHO youre test message had the wrong charset set up.
(eg it said that the content was 7bit us-ascii ... but you used 8 bit
characters ... it should have said something like iso-8859-1)
SH> Sam Heywood
CU, Ricsi
- --
Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ICQ: 7659421] {RSA-PGP Key avail.}
- -=> Lunatic asylum: where optimism most flourishes <=-
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 00:49:37 +0100 (CET)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
Subject: Charset in insight
* Changed by Richard Menedetter, 09 Mar 2000
OK ... I just sent a testmessage to myself ...
And it looks good ...
(ISO-8859-1 _IS_ ISO Latin-1)
Have you set up Arachne to use ISO-Latin-1 ???
(options -> local settings -> character sets ??)
This is the most commonly used charset on the internet.
Here is the message. (I used ��� to force it to 8 bits)
(otherwise Insight would have had the option to say charset us-ascii,
because if you use only 7 bit characters, us-ascii and latin-1 are the
same)
Header:
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Body:
test���
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 19:00:22 -0500
From: Clarence Verge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Improper HTML rendering of high ascii characters
Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
>
> There are many popularly accepted "standard" reference sources that show
> an ascii table consisting of 256 characters. If ascii does indeed have
> only 128 characters then there ought to be a footnote and explanation
> about it in all of the "standard" reference sources. This is why we
> have a problem.
Partly.
At the risk of opening another can of worms here, there is a tendency for
popular American reference sources to ignore the other 5.7 billion people
on the planet.<G>
- - Clarence Verge
- --
- - Help stamp out FATWARE. As a start visit: http://home.arachne.cz/
- --
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 21:04:17 -0500
From: "Glenn McCorkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Improper HTML rendering of high ascii characters
On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 20:31:25 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
wrote:
> 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.
Unicode not posible in DOS ??? Don't be so sure.
Not too long ago,
"Full featured Graphical Web Browsing is not possible in DOS".
Then..... along came Arachne. We all know the rest of the story.<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 20:45:58 -0500
From: "Glenn McCorkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Improper HTML rendering of high ascii characters
On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 19:00:22 -0500, Clarence Verge wrote:
> Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
>> There are many popularly accepted "standard" reference sources that show
>> an ascii table consisting of 256 characters. If ascii does indeed have
>> only 128 characters then there ought to be a footnote and explanation
>> about it in all of the "standard" reference sources. This is why we
>> have a problem.
> Partly.
> At the risk of opening another can of worms here, there is a tendency for
> popular American reference sources to ignore the other 5.7 billion people
> on the planet.<G>
There also seems to be a tendency among Mozilla/Win16 users to feel the
need to point this out.<vbg>
- --
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 22:53:59 -0500
From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Charset in insight
On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 00:49:37 +0100 (CET), Richard Menedetter wrote:
> * Changed by Richard Menedetter, 09 Mar 2000
> OK ... I just sent a testmessage to myself ...
> And it looks good ...
> (ISO-8859-1 _IS_ ISO Latin-1)
I have just recently entered a change in my Arachne setup so that it
is now configured for the character set ISO-1859-1.
Non-English Spanish language characters follow:
160 � an accented a, forward accent /
130 � an accented e, forward accent /
161 � an accented i, forward accent /
162 � an accented o, forward accent /
163 � an accented u, forward accent /
164 � an n with a tilde over it
166 � a superscripted a with a line under it
167 � a superscripted o with a line under it
168 � an inverted question mark
173 � an inverted exclamation mark
Do you view these characters as described?
At my end they are correct as seen at the DOS console, but incorrect
when viewed within Insight while the message is still in my outbox.
I am supposing that it will look just the same to me when I see it posted
on the list.
Sam Heywood
- -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 22:16:26 -0500
From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Improper HTML rendering of high ascii characters
On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 00:25:31 +0100 (CET), Richard Menedetter wrote:
> "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SH> There are many popularly accepted "standard" reference sources that
> SH> show an ascii table consisting of 256 characters.
> These references do not show ASCII, but eg CP437 (standard DOS Codepage)
> CP437 consists of:
> 0-127: standard ASCII
> 128-255: cp437 extension to ASCII
> Almost all codepages differ only in the high ascii range.
> eg cp850 (equivalent to iso-latin-1 in dos) consists of ASCII+cp850
> extension ...
> SH> If ascii does indeed have only 128 characters then there ought to be
> SH> a footnote and explanation about it in all of the "standard"
> SH> reference sources.
> There IS :)
> (if not than you have a really bad reference ... :)
You are right about that.
> SH> This is why we have a problem.
> I still can't see the problem ...
The problem is that all this business about code pages and extended ascii
character sets isn't taught in the schools here. Almost everybody uses
the standard default code page. There is a general presumption that
everybody wants to write English. If you want to learn how to do email in
another language, then you have to learn about it on your own. I have
completed many computer courses here in a local community college. In
not a single course was this subject matter ever touched upon. Most of
my references are from textbooks printed in the US. The only references
to code pages and character sets appear in the appendix. There are no
special chapters and study materials provided on the subject. I have the
impression that all this stuff is general knowledge among the
computer-literate people in Europe. In the US most people who are otherwise
very computer-literate know nothing about code-pages and special characters,
even though the English language has adopted hundreds of very commonly used
non-English words which require special characters. Whenever most people
want to use a special character, they just invoke some special function
for it in their M$-Word-processor. Very few people want to know about how to
create special characters by use of compatible technology, which calls for
a normal text editor of course. The major computerdoms of this age have all
decreed that compatible technology is attainable only through universal
acceptance of Gatesware, and anyone who disagrees is a heretic.
I hope you understand the problem . . . :(
<snip>
Sam Heywood
- -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 02:07:56 -0500
From: "Clarence Verge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Charset in insight
On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 22:53:59 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> I have just recently entered a change in my Arachne setup so that it
> is now configured for the character set ISO-1859-1.
> Non-English Spanish language characters follow:
> 160 � an accented a, forward accent /
> 130 � an accented e, forward accent /
> 161 � an accented i, forward accent /
> 162 � an accented o, forward accent /
> 163 � an accented u, forward accent /
> 164 � an n with a tilde over it
> 166 � a superscripted a with a line under it
> 167 � a superscripted o with a line under it
> 168 � an inverted question mark
> 173 � an inverted exclamation mark
> Do you view these characters as described?
Sam, your ORIGINAL post looked OK to me in NS and Arachne but this one
does not look correct in Arachne. But, as you say, it does look right
in DOS. However, I have no idea what ISO-1859-1 is supposed to look
like. Maybe you meant 8859-1 ? Although I wouldn't know what that is
supposed to look like either.
I think we need some graphics with labels (say a .gif) so everyone can
view the character sets associated with these names the same way.
- Clarence Verge
- -- Using Arachne 1.50b2 for a change.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 01:42:50 -0500
From: "Clarence Verge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Improper HTML rendering of high ascii characters
On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 20:45:58 -0500, Glenn McCorkle wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 19:00:22 -0500, Clarence Verge wrote:
>> Partly.
>> At the risk of opening another can of worms here, there is a tendency for
>> popular American reference sources to ignore the other 5.7 billion people
>> on the planet.<G>
> There also seems to be a tendency among Mozilla/Win16 users to feel the
> need to point this out.<vbg>
Maybe Mozilla/Win16 users just like cans of worms. }|>={-^
- Clarence Verge
- -- Using Arachne 1.50b2 for a change.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 09:38:49 +0100 (CET)
From: "Bagnoli Franco ([EMAIL PROTECTED])" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: hi!
On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> 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.
You touched the point. At present we have some high-tech kiosks with touch
screen, fast pentiums and specialized software (based on a combination of
internet explorer and visual basic). Apart from the cost (which is
also important: due to limited budget of our public university, we have to
choose between 10 such high-tech kiosks or 100 (maybe 1000?) low-end
arachne ones -- we have 5000 students!), they suffer alternatively from
being out of service or hackerized (say installing irc servers).
Arachne could solve some of these problems, but I have to avoid for
instance exiting to dos pressing the esc key, and maybe preventing access
to the command.com shell. I have some ideas, but I would like to know if
anybody has already considered the question.
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: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 09:40:09 +0100 (CET)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
Subject: Charset in insight
Hi
"Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SH> I have just recently entered a change in my Arachne setup so that it
SH> is now configured for the character set ISO-1859-1.
Have you also configured the character mapping in arachne ??
SH> Non-English Spanish language characters follow:
SH> 130 � an accented e, forward accent /
This is the only one which is correct over here ...
(I use CP437, so not all of this characters are available ... so if the
characters are showed correctly elsewhere, than please write :)
SH> At my end they are correct as seen at the DOS console, but incorrect
SH> when viewed within Insight while the message is still in my outbox.
It has to be exactly the other way around IMHO
Correct in Inisght, and FALSE in DOS ...
SH> Sam Heywood
CU, Ricsi
- --
Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ICQ: 7659421] {RSA-PGP Key avail.}
- -=> Control-Alt-Delete thyself <=-
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 09:33:17 +0100 (CET)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
Subject: Improper HTML rendering of high ascii characters
Hi
"Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> SH> This is why we have a problem.
>> I still can't see the problem ...
SH> The problem is that all this business about code pages and extended
SH> ascii character sets isn't taught in the schools here. Almost
SH> everybody uses the standard default code page.
SH> I hope you understand the problem . . . :(
Yes ;) (Now I do understand)
But I thought that you had a technical problem ...
I'm glad that this is not so :)
And I think that even that problem is not that great, because interamerican
communication is not affected, and if you want to write 'special
characters' than mostly your mailwriter will take care of it ...
(But if your in DOS, YOU have to take care of it :)))
SH> Sam Heywood
CU, Ricsi
- --
Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ICQ: 7659421] {RSA-PGP Key avail.}
- -=> Everything is just chemistry! <=-
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 09:21:23 +0100 (CET)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
Subject: Improper HTML rendering of high ascii characters
Hi
"Glenn McCorkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
GM> Unicode not posible in DOS ??? Don't be so sure.
GM> Not too long ago,
GM> "Full featured Graphical Web Browsing is not possible in DOS".
GM> Then..... along came Arachne. We all know the rest of the story.<g>
But what if the author of Arachne tells us, that it is technically
impossible .... :)
(Michael has did so)
GM> Glenn McCorkle [EMAIL PROTECTED] North Jackson, Ohio, USA
CU, Ricsi
- --
Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ICQ: 7659421] {RSA-PGP Key avail.}
- -=> This message will self-destruct in five seconds... <=-
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 04:02:56 -0500
From: Mark David Roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Charset in insight
> * Changed by Richard Menedetter, 09 Mar 2000
> OK ... I just sent a testmessage to myself ...
> And it looks good ...
> (ISO-8859-1 _IS_ ISO Latin-1)
- -Sam Heywood
- -Do you view these characters as described?
No I didn't see them that way using CompuServe's mail client for DOSCIM.
- -I have just recently entered a change in my Arachne setup so that it
- -is now configured for the character set ISO-1859-1.
- -Non-English Spanish language characters follow:
What I saw was as follows:
- -160 an accented a, forward accent /
Nothing
- -130 an accented e, forward accent /
Nothing
- -161 ! an accented i, forward accent /
An exclamation mark
- -162 c an accented o, forward accent /
a small case c
- -163 L an accented u, forward accent /
a capitol L
- -164 an n with a tilde over it
Nothing
- -166 | a superscripted a with a line under it
a pipe symbol
- -167 S a superscripted o with a line under it
a capitol S
- -168 " an inverted question mark
a double quotatiom mark
- -173 - an inverted exclamation mark
a dash (minus)
I don't know if that's any help to you. But I thought you might like to
know.
- -At my end they are correct as seen at the DOS console, but incorrect
- -when viewed within Insight while the message is still in my outbox.
- -I am supposing that it will look just the same to me when I see it posted
- -on the list.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 06:27:54 -0500 (EST)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Arachne 1.61 problems
>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 ;)
Win2000 was said to have 63000 bugs in the release version!
Arachne 1.60 is much faster than 1.48 or 1.50b2, I don't want to go back. But I
don't like to use Arachne for mail with the crazy file-naming scheme.
DOS Lynx 386 is on v2.8.3dev21, I downloaded it a few days ago and haven't set
up yet. Last version, which I've been using is 2.8.3dev14. I use the
development version because images, including inline, are activatable links, and
v2.8.2 didn't work for me.
Thomas Mueller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 06:27:55 -0500 (EST)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Improper HTML rendering of high ascii characters
Sam Heywood,
Your header specified charset=US-ASCII, so I viewed the straight DOS way, and
the upper ASCII characters didn't come out right. How did you view, and what
charset?
Thomas Mueller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 12:03:04 -000
From: Mike Millen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Improper HTML rendering of high ascii characters
RM>CU, Ricsi
RM>PS: Is my signature correctly terminated ?? (--space)
No, sorry.
I checked with a hex viewer... NO space after the --.
HST, NTReader, the OLR I use with NetTamer for email
and NGs still accepted the Tear Line and didn't show
your sig when I did "reply with quote".
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 14:32:10 +0100 (CET)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
Subject: Improper HTML rendering of high ascii characters
Hi
Mike Millen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
RM>> PS: Is my signature correctly terminated ?? (--space)
MM> No, sorry.
MM> I checked with a hex viewer... NO space after the --.
Hmm interesting ... it seems that Glenn got it correctly.
What can cause this difference ??
MM> Mike
CU, Ricsi
- --
Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ICQ: 7659421] {RSA-PGP Key avail.}
- -=> Computer Lie #1: You'll never use all that disk space <=-
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 10:05:42 -0500
From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Improper HTML rendering of high ascii characters
On Thu, 9 Mar 2000 06:27:55 -0500 (EST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sam Heywood,
> Your header specified charset=US-ASCII, so I viewed the straight DOS way, and
> the upper ASCII characters didn't come out right. How did you view, and what
> charset?
Hello Thomas,
Thanks for your reply.
Within DOS I view it with whatever the default character set is. I have
nothing set up within DOS specifying any character set or code page. Within
Arachne I have changed my setup for ISO-8859-1.
I just checked my "SENT MAIL" box and looked at the message again. The
header *does not* specify charset=US-ASCII.
Here is a copy of the header for the message in question:
- ------- begin header for sent message ---------
>From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Organization: Arachne Fan Club
>Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 22:53:59 -0500
>X-Mailer: Arachne V1.60;b1
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Charset in insight
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
- ------ end header for sent message -------------
I think I will need to set up something within DOS in order to resolve this
problem.
Could someone please recommend what I should do?
I want to use charset=ISO-8859-1
I am using Caldera DR-DOS, version 7.02.
I know I might have to add some lines in AUTOEXEC.BAT or CONFIG.SYS or both.
Where should the line(s) be added in the loading sequences?
Also, please inform me as to whether any proposed changes might reduce
my available free DOS memory.
Please believe me that this subject matter just isn't taught in the schools
around here. All I know about it are some obscure references buried in
the appendix of some text books that I have. In the area where I live, I
don't know anyone who knows anything about code pages.
Thank you all for your help.
Sam Heywood
- -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 15:25:29 -000
From: Mike Millen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Improper HTML rendering of high ascii characters
RM>RM>> PS: Is my signature correctly terminated ?? (--space)
RM>MM> I checked with a hex viewer... NO space after the --.
RM>Hmm interesting ... it seems that Glenn got it correctly.
RM>What can cause this difference ??
No idea. I checked the .dlu file that NetTamer wrote as it
d/l'd your email. I've got nothing that alters that.
Here's the hexdump of that last part of your email:
0007A0 4D 69 6B 65 0D 0A 0D 0A 43 55 2C 20 52 69 63 73 Mike CU, Rics
0007B0 69 0D 0A 0D 0A 50 53 3A 20 49 73 20 6D 79 20 73 i PS: Is my s
0007C0 69 67 6E 61 74 75 72 65 20 63 6F 72 72 65 63 74 ignature correct
0007D0 6C 79 20 74 65 72 6D 69 6E 61 74 65 64 20 3F 3F ly terminated ??
0007E0 20 28 2D 2D 73 70 61 63 65 29 0D 0A 2D 2D 0D 0A (--space) --
0007F0 52 69 63 68 61 72 64 20 4D 65 6E 65 64 65 74 74 Richard Menedett
Ask Glenn for a hexdump, too.
Cheers,
Mike
------------------------------
End of arachne-digest V1 #1030
******************************
