Tuesday, May 02, 2000, 3:14:59 PM, Alexander wrote:
> Mistake #1 on your side: you think plain ASCII is a limitation of some
> (unknown to me) sort, whereas _I_ think ASCII is a _power_, a well-thought
> standard that those guys who invented "soft returns" and things alike (read:
> M$ with its Word and heaps of others) just plain spoiled.
Mistake #2: You think I have some love for M$? Trust me, hard and soft
CRs come from my Fido days well before I even used a PC. Try again.
> Well, it follows that _your_ choice is Word's way of doing things, despite
> your dislike towards M$.
No, I was pointing out that by limiting yourself to looking at the data
one way you're limiting what the program can do. A program is a black box, it
doesn't matter what the data looks internally as long as it can be passed in
and out of in well known and accepted manners.
Quite frankly, I am insulted that you would associate me with your limited
way of thinking.
> That's your choice, but let me think differently.
I'll pity you for thinking in a limited manner.
> There's _nothing_ in word- processing world that cannot be done (and done
> _better_) with just plain ASCII. Wanna examples? TeX for typesetting, HTML
> for web publishing. _No_ need in RTF, DOC, XLS, etc., etc., etc., etc.......
MmmKay you, pal. Just go MMmKay yourself. Where the MmmKay did I /EVER/
say the format had to be used outside the program!? HUH? WHERE DID I SAY IT.
GO BACK READ THE MMMKAYING MESSAGE AND TELL ME WHERE I SAID IT. I SAID THAT
THE DATA, INTERNALLY, CAN BE MANIPULATED ANY MMMKAYING WAY YOU FELT LIKE AS
LONG AS IT LEFT THE PROGRAM AS NEEDED. I really /HATE/, yes, /HATE/ people
like you who don't *READ* what is written and instead mouth-off and place
words in other people's mouths!
Here they are again since it is clear you lack the mental capacities to
READ and therefore the capacities to go back to a message and actually find
what I wrote!!!
"Therefore it is clear that TB! is able to represent the data in a manner,
internally, which does defy the limitations of the transmit medium and, upon
sending, can translate down to that medium."
READ THIS: "...and, upon sending, can translate down to that medium."
In short you pontificating, arrogant poo, I never once said the medium was
RTF, DOC, XLS, etc, etc, etc. It could be TEX, HTML, SGML, XML (all ASCII as
far as I know) since the program would be taking the internal representation
of that data and translating it INTO THAT MEDIUM.
Is that clear enough for you or will I have to go find a special ed
teacher to work with you on that /very/ easy to understand statement?
> Did you read what I had written? Was my English unclear? I said that this is
> a matter of the quantities of programming work needed to implement it this
> or that way.
I did read what you wrote. You clearly didn't read what I wrote, did you?
I never said a hex code. I never said it couldn't be ASCII. I just said that
how TB! represents such a construct internally and displays it has no bearing
on what it sends out externally. Personally I was thinking that double-CRs
would be a hard CR while a single is not. You displayed how it could be with
a space at the beginning of a line which completely ignores the problems with
that but I digress into a realm you clearly cannot being to think about
without putting on a bib!
> Then algorithms are necessary that convert one form to another and vice
> versa. The implementation of the "soft-hard" way of editing from the ground
> up. In short, you want the editor to be rewritten...
In case you didn't notice, poobrain, is that what you were describing
already did that in the same manner. You also failed to see that the editor
clearly does not represent the data in perfect ASCII
since
things
like
this
are
possible.
If
they
were
working
with
pure
ASCII you then would
as suggest I have
to
type
each
space. Clearly I am not. Again, you missed the entire point that how the
data is represented internally has no bearing on the limitations of the medium
upon output. Because of this how the /HELL/ do you know that it would be a
complete rewrite from the ground up? Do you know what type of editor they are
using, HMM? Have you seen the code? Last I checked TB! was not distributed
under any of the open source licenses and the code wasn't distributed outside
of RITLABS. It is possible you've seen it but somehow I seriously doubt it.
Now, do yourself a favor, shut-up and read this message at least twice.
Call your mother over and have her help you with the big words and make sure
you understand /EXACTLY/ what I wrote before you go replying and putting more
words in my mouth that I didn't place there. If you don't you and I /will/
have words. Clear?
[*] This message filtered through Counselor MacKay's naughty word filter.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as : [email protected]
