Re: Re: Character mangling test
Re: Re: Character mangling test
- Subject: Re: Re: Character mangling test
- From: email@hidden
- Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 16:31:49 EST
In a message dated 2/18/01 5:27:12 AM, Richard 23 wrote by first quoting me:
<snip> miserable failure <snip> mangled <snip> kludge <snip>
>
I'd be happy to try out your solution...this one has been available for
>
constructive review since before November 2000.
You misread my proposal BIG TIME. Read on...
>
Clique-ish? Are you sure about this?
Just a thought, and on reflection a bad one, since this list is so welcoming
to start with.
>
Mostly? What doesn't work?
The "mostly" means your script can't fix every problem, such as email clients
or mail relays that damage messages before or after passage thru Apple's
listserv, as happened to me with AOL.*
>
Kludge? What do you call the current system? It's not possible to
>
completely dekludge a kludge. I'm not too worried about it.
Touche4.
>
If anyone wants to use it they can. If someone comes up with something
>
simpler then I'm all for it.
>
>And suggestions based on my original posting, in that order.
>
>-----------------------------
>
>[how to type original character on US keyboard / Geneva] (description)
>
>what to type instead
>
>-----------------------------
>
>[option-,] (less than or equals)
>
>" is less than or equal to "
>
>-----------------------------
I think you misread this. I am NOT suggesting typing [option-,] or other such
horrible things. I am suggesting typing the wordy but pure 7-bit ASCII phrase
"is greater than or equal to." It will always work and no list server, mail
relay, or email client can mangle it.
You are apparently interpreting each second line between the ---- as comments
only. NO! Those are my suggested replacements/solutions, followed
occasionally by comments.
>
>[option-.] (greater than or equals)
>
>" is greater than or equal to "
>
>-----------------------------
>
>[option-return] (the line continuation character)
>
>keep your lines short; I can live with ==>, but can newbies?
>
>-----------------------------
>
>[option-\] (a left chevron)
>
><< hopefully, newbies will never need to contend with these
>
>-----------------------------
>
>.....
>
Most of the characters you posted aren't really used in scripts
>
except perhaps in quoted strings. I didn't even go there because
>
quoted strings can contain anything and since many of the > 127
>
characters map to alphanumerics already in use it's just not very
>
practical to try and cover those...may as well binhex....
That's why I broke it up into common script characters and then a re-do of
all the characters I originally tested. Too anal of me? Don't answer that.
>
I agree about the '==>' but nothing looks like the option-L character
>
so I chose something that's visually suggestive (to me I guess).
My solution is short lines.
That solves email line wrap too.
>
Using [option-L] is possible but replacing one character with many
>
makes the line wrap problem more pronounced.
Again, I'm not suggestiing using [option-L]. Actually, that brings up another
question. I've always used [option-return] for line continuation. It seems
that you and others are typing [option-L] and then return. And to be even
pickier, it's actually [option-l] (lower case "L"); using a true [option-L]
gives you a capital O with a grave (downgoing) accent. But [option-l] looks
like [option-|] (vertical bar) or [option-I] (capital "i"), so there's no
good way even to type the keystrokes.
>
The other characters I mapped, other than the chevrons which do turn
>
up now and then, << and >> are more visually intuitive than + and ;
>
and is less space consuming than the [option-x] equivalents. The
>
wordier it gets and the more symbols one tries to handle, the more
>
obfuscated it actually becomes and harder for a simple script to
>
handle properly.
>
>
<<event sysobeep>>
>
>
seems more readable than
>
>
[option-\]event sysobeep[option-shift-\]
I agree.
As before, you misread.
Not suggesting that at all.
Yuk : P
>
and is more likely to allow the original line to fit an email line.
>
also with the others I address, the two character symbols below:
>
>
less than or equal <=
>
greater than or equal >=
>
not equal /=
>
>
all compile directly from email even without my tool.
True enough, but they don't then go back to email peacefully. I am suggesting
using the wordy but safe full text equivalents:
is less than or equal to
is greater than or equal to
is not equal to
>
This means a
>
preprocessed script will compile fine if it includes no chevrons
>
and no continuation characters. And if someone really wants the
>
english wordy variants there's a "Use English" setting described in
>
my Read Me that tells how to decode to those forms by default.
Ah, I learned something. But posting the script with full English in the
first place prevents any problems anywhere down the line. Maybe your tool can
just do the conversion to wordy English as the default (the socially
responsibly thing to do; friends don't let friends post high-ASCII).
>
The [option-,] [option-.] [option-=] are less intuitive, less readable,
>
and may not even map properly for non-us keyboards. The
>
<=, >=, /= symbols are hardcoded into AppleScript an will compile
>
regardless of localization AFAIK.
Ditto above. Not my suggestion.
<snip remainder, more of the same>
To summarize, this problem is 98% fixable by using short lines and wordy
English comparison operators. All that remains are the chevrons and omega
character, which only the geekiest among us really use (I include myself in
that group).
Jeff Baumann
email@hidden
www.linkedresources.com
11 Days, 2 Hour, 5 Minutes
How is it going to end?
* Why do I still use AOL?
10) Had it 6 years - people know the address.
9) Wife uses same account (different screen name).
8) Cable modem plus IPNetRouter plus "bring your own access" equals fast
connections/no dial-up hassles/full internet otherwise.
7) No one can mis-spell AOL.
6) I actually like the interface. OK, I'm just used to it. OK, they totally
butchered the GUI in version 4 and later (I still use 3.02a).
5) Inexpensive connectivity option while travelling.
4) Can access from other's systems as long as they have AOL.
3) I'm waiting for MacOS X and the built in email client.
2) I like instant messaging.
And the number one reason I still use AOL?
1) I'm a selectively lazy procrastinator.