You're again employing an untruth to buttress your argument. I never
said that an entire encoding would necessarily be covered in one code
page. As a matter of fact I said the exact opposite, thus emphasising
the suitability of the term English ANSI text.
Here's my paragraph again:
In a previous post you indicated that extended ANSI differs depending
on the language. I then reminded you that English was the language
under discussion. The fact that more than one code page might be
needed to cover the entire character set makes it even more necessary
and appropriate to refer to the this particular encoding as English
ANSI text. I suggest you knew all along what specific encoding I was
referring to as you took the trouble to provide the code page number.
So it is a mystery to me why you insist on the claim that my original
post was ambiguous or even incorrectly worded.
If you impute incomprehensible malice to other people, don't be
surprised if their
honest actions become mysterious to you.
distorting the truth, arguing the toss over the use of a perfectly
valid technical term, making false claims of a genuine desire to help
while it's clear for everyone to see that you've deliberately ignored
the main aim of the thread and instead focused on puerile point
scoring. Sorry, this is not my definition of honest action.
If you'd said "CAPTCHA text", I'd have been able point to you to
WebVisum at once,
because I'd have known what you meant. Instead I was left trying to
work out whether
you were talking about the labels for the icons in Firefox's chrome,
the icons on
the Windows desktop, icons on some website, or some sort of
unfamiliar encoding.
Mind reading isn't one of my strengths. Perhaps if you'd asked me to
describe the function of the add-on rather than splitting hairs over
ASCII AND ANSI we might have reached the end of the thread far more swiftly.
For my part, if I came across as belligerent, I apologise; no
warmongering was intended.
I'm normally willing to accept a graceful apology and I would in your
case if it didn't sound so hollow and cynical.
Nevertheless, I'm glad the thread has reached its natural conclusion.
Happy new year
John
At 06:53 01/01/2009, you wrote:
On 1/1/09 03:01, John G wrote:
In a previous post you indicated that extended ANSI differs depending on
the language.
I said "The characters of such text vary with code page, in order to
accommodate different languages". I didn't say there was one code
page per language. I can see how that phrasing may have been confusing however.
I suggest you knew all along what specific encoding I was
referring to as you took the trouble to provide the code page number. So
it is a mystery to me why you insist on the claim that my original post
was ambiguous or even incorrectly worded.
If you impute incomprehensible malice to other people, don't be
surprised if their honest actions become mysterious to you.
unless otherwise stated English is the default language in discussion.
I try not to make that assumption.
You're deliberately straying off the point again.
I was simply defending my previous email against your charge of bad faith.
WebVisum is indeed the add-on in question.
I'm genuinely glad you've found what you were looking for.
CAPTCHA image, image text,
icon text, I've heard all of them used before. You're not seriously
suggesting that you never use alternative terms to describe the same
concept.
That's a strawman argument, those aren't alternative terms for the
same concept, I don't remember anyone mistakenly calling CAPTCHA
text "icon text" before, and I don't think it would have been a good
guess to assume you meant CAPTCHA text.
While CAPTCHAs that are images of text are a subset of the concept
"image text", such CAPTCHAs are never icons. Icons are non-textual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon_(computing)
If you'd said "CAPTCHA text", I'd have been able point to you to
WebVisum at once, because I'd have known what you meant. Instead I
was left trying to work out whether you were talking about the
labels for the icons in Firefox's chrome, the icons on the Windows
desktop, icons on some website, or some sort of unfamiliar encoding.
Asking a more detailed question might be more likely to elicit it. :)
and if only you took your own advice and asked questions relevant to the
add-on and its functionality. focusing on the semantics of the question
would have been a far more efficient means of finding the answer to my
qquery.
I did try that, by asking what you meant by "icon text", what you
meant by "ANSI text", and how the conversion between the two would
help. Since your description didn't make any sense to me or sound
like any Firefox add-on I'd ever heard of, I'm not sure what other
questions I could have asked.
Alas, some prefer belligerence and one-upmanship to cooperation.
For my part, if I came across as belligerent, I apologise; no
warmongering was intended.
Again, I'm glad you've got your add-on now.
--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
If you reply to this message it will be delivered to the original
sender only. If your reply would benefit others on the list and
your message is related to GW Micro, then please consider sending
your message to [email protected] so the entire list will receive it.
All GW-Info messages are archived at http://www.gwmicro.com/gwinfo, and can be
searched through and sorted using the search
form at the bottom of the page.
If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
[email protected] and include leave gw-info in the body
of the message.
