Asking if elements in struct arre zero

[Richard Bos]

You are apparently ignoring the inevitability of a USENET on which HTML
is common

You are apparently the only one who thinks this is inevitable.

This, of course, does assume that USENET survives to make the
transition...which is by no means guaranteed either.

Death of Usenet predicted, film at eleven.

Richard

 

[Programmer Dude]

But fire up any MS-Windows machine and ask for FixedSys. It, like
many others such as Terminal (MS-specific again, I suspect),
Lucida Console and OCR-A only have serifs on narrow letters (i, j
and l).

True enough. Maybe we can call them half-serif. (-:

(In fact, I moved to Lucida Console for most of my source code
editors *because* it is cleaner.)

 

[Programmer Dude]

What is wrong with spaces for the indent if the editor handles it
for you?

Nothing, really. It's just slightly cruder.

It's not perfect, but I've just resized my text window for reading
to about 20 characters and it is still perfectly readable.

Try reading 65-column text with hard returns in a 55-column window!
Looks kinda ugly with those alternating short and full lines.

I don't find a ragged right edge to be a problem.

Nor do I, although (well) justified text is easier to read (hence
its common use in books and magazines).

I'm sure it can be done in emacs or vim, either of which I can
use as an editor for my client.

By hand (or with macros, I suppose), but you're rather restricted
to the ASCII symbol set. HTML gives you those cute bullets.

If people stick to standard quoting conventions then SW can rewrap
quoted text...

Fine for reading other people's writing. I just wouldn't mind
having more formatting ability for MY writing. As I've said,
I'd much rather use "real" bullet lists, real bold, real italics
and real underlining rather than their ASCII-alikes.

Considering the overall movement towards more sophisticated tools,
I continue to suspect I need only bide my time. (-:

Peace out.

 

[Programmer Dude]

Please note your previous paragraph and note that the majority of
people are not wise. Then consider what it means for the likely
formatting.

[shrug] It's a learning process. I'd still rather move forward
than stay in one place.

Alternatively don't add a need for the extra options then no one
needs to learn how to use them and no one needs to write them.

Sounds stagnant to me. While I don't support Obsessive Growth
(something of an American Way Of Life), I do think growth and
change are vital to, well, vitality.

Suppose we'd all decided there was no need for the extra options
offered by improved medical care? Or any other advance.

Why should your ability to cope with it exclude those who either
by choice or lack of resources are not able to cope?

I don't think it *excludes* at all. If you want to stay with
plain text, do so. If you want to strip HTML tags from HTML
posts, do so. If you want to use HTML tags as a filter to
eliminate posts you refuse to see, do so.

I'm not in favor of forcing anyone to do anything. I would like
the ability to use advanced tools if *I* choose.

As I've said, if you want *bold* rendered in *bold* and _underlined_
rendered as _underlined_ then you can get a news reader today for
free that will do it.

No, I want to be able to *produce* text that looks a certain way.

Peace Out.

 

[Alan Balmer]

Nothing, really. It's just slightly cruder.

Because you can't indent in other than multiples of a character? I
doubt that I'd ever notice the difference.

Try reading 65-column text with hard returns in a 55-column window!
Looks kinda ugly with those alternating short and full lines.

I can have my (text) reader re-wrap the text.

Nor do I, although (well) justified text is easier to read (hence
its common use in books and magazines).

Hmm.. Chapter and verse, please. I've never explicitly researched
this, but I do remember a study some years ago which indicated that
ragged right edges are actually easier to read.

By hand (or with macros, I suppose), but you're rather restricted
to the ASCII symbol set. HTML gives you those cute bullets.

Yes, I've seen some of those - one was miniature elephants waving
their trunks. I didn't think it added to readability, but that's just
my opinion.

Fine for reading other people's writing. I just wouldn't mind
having more formatting ability for MY writing. As I've said,
I'd much rather use "real" bullet lists, real bold, real italics
and real underlining rather than their ASCII-alikes.

Considering the overall movement towards more sophisticated tools,
I continue to suspect I need only bide my time. (-:

Peace out.

If the tools get sophisticated enough so that *your* tool can turn
your html into plain text for transmission, go for it, but I don't
want to have to supply a tool that turns your 100 lines of html into
my 10 lines of text. Let's do it the other way around.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Programmer Dude wrote:

If you want to stay with
plain text, do so. If you want to strip HTML tags from HTML
posts, do so. If you want to use HTML tags as a filter to
eliminate posts you refuse to see, do so.

I'm not in favor of forcing anyone to do anything. I would like
the ability to use advanced tools if *I* choose.

Indeed (although we could quibble over "advanced" - but let's not).

But the problem is this: most of the people in comp.lang.c who are providing
a service are also the people who don't like HTML articles. Most of the
people posting in HTML (and I don't mean to make it sound like there are
hundreds, because there aren't) are also the people who wish to avail
themselves of that service.

So - which is better? To say to these people "please don't post in HTML" and
then help them out with their C question, or to ignore their articles
completely without even telling them why they're being ignored?

<snip>

 

[Programmer Dude]

Indeed (although we could quibble over "advanced" - but let's not).

Good. You'd lose.

So - which is better? To say to these people "please don't post in
HTML" and then help them out with their C question, or to ignore
their articles completely without even telling them why they're
being ignored?

I don't agree those are the only choices.

 

[Programmer Dude]

I can have my (text) reader re-wrap the text.

It will ignore hard returns? Slick.

Hmm.. Chapter and verse, please. I've never explicitly researched
this, but I do remember a study some years ago which indicated that
ragged right edges are actually easier to read.

I did a little poking around the 'net. Opinions vary with a number
of them in favor of "ragged right" (although some of them go on to
mention the potential for "really ragged right" (unattractive)).

Justified seems to be considered more formal and does require care
to insure you don't have "rivers" (of white running down the text).
It was also mentioned that the additional space betweed words does
have the potential to slow reading time.

I suspect it boils down to this: with very good typesetting and
the right line width, justified is probably "better". In most
other cases, it probably is not.

Thus, I retract my original statement (I have a background in the
publishing industry, and that was the source of my belief--which
remains true IN THAT CONTEXT).

Yes, I've seen some of those - one was miniature elephants waving
their trunks. I didn't think it added to readability,...

No, I'd agree! Cute does not good writing make.

Indeed, writing for content should be as "transparent" as possible.
My opinion is that true bold/italic/underline is more transparent
than their ASCII alikes (when I write very seriously (in text) I
tend to not use the ASCII indicators and emoticons at all). I would
also opine that proportional spacing is more transparent than mono
for anything but source code.

[shrug] As I've said; time will tell.

Peace Out.

 

[Alan Balmer]

My opinion is that true bold/italic/underline is more transparent
than their ASCII alikes

I think I have to agree with that, so long as it's transparent to a
reader which doesn't support it.

(when I write very seriously (in text) I
tend to not use the ASCII indicators and emoticons at all).

The ability to effective convey emotional tone without the use of such
devices is a mark of a good wordsmith.

I would
also opine that proportional spacing is more transparent than mono
for anything but source code.

Once again, I agree with you. I use a proportional font unless there's
code involved. Just don't send me HTML!

 

[Lew Pitcher]

Richard Bos wrote:




Yes. But the name of that font?.....

It was probably a basic 5x7 ROM encoded display font, ya know?

OK, hardware time.

You want something that's informally called the "IBM ASCII Character set"
(sic) that's documented in the IBM PC/XT Technical Reference

Sorry, I don't have an IC number for you; my guess is that it was a custom
ROM defined by (if not built by) IBM. While my resources give the pinouts
for the video controller (a 6845, they say), no mention of the chip id of
the rom is given.

Sorry


--
Lew Pitcher

Master Codewright and JOAT-in-training
Registered Linux User #112576 (http://counter.li.org/)
Slackware - Because I know what I'm doing.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Good. You'd lose.

I don't think so. In this case, what you call "advanced" is what most people
taking part in this discussion would consider retarded or regressed,
because providing newbies with the power to post HTML into comp.lang.c
without also providing them with the wisdom not to is not a sign of
advancement, but of poverty of thought.

I don't agree those are the only choices.

But you don't get to choose other people's actions for them, any more than I
do. You only get to choose your own. Personally, I'm getting more and more
fed up of off-topic bickering such as has been seen in this thread, and
it's getting to the point where I would go for the second option rather
than the first, because the first only leads to asinine threads like this
one.

 

[Bob Chan]

[...] I read my email in vi (well, all right, vim). [...]

Do you do it ~comfortably~? I've always wanted to do this but have never
found a non-clumbsy way to do it. May I email you regarding your setup? (In
plain-text, of course.)

Regards,
Bob

 

[Programmer Dude]

I think I have to agree with that, so long as it's transparent to
a reader which doesn't support it.

That's the rub, isn't it. A plain text reader probably won't have
a "remove HTML tags" option (which would be simple to implement).

Not intending to open another can of worms, but MIME multi-part
would (almost) solve the problem. One part plain text, one part
HTML. Everyone wins.

Except for those readers that don't do MIME, either. :-\

I do fully understand and appreciate the plain text thing (and
obviously have been participating in it for a couple decades).

I just also think the time may be at hand when the lowest common
denominator could be moved up a notch. Maybe not quite "today"
or "tomorrow", but perhaps "next week" or "next month"...

Just don't send me HTML!

I won't. For now. (-:

 

[Programmer Dude]

In this case, what you call "advanced" is what most people
taking part in this discussion would consider retarded or
regressed,...

No, those words would not be appropriate. "Undesirable" (for
arguably good reasons) or "unwelcome" or "dangerous" or "unwieldy"
or "problematic" would all be appropriate words.

...because providing newbies with the power to post HTML into
comp.lang.c without also providing them with the wisdom not to
is not a sign of advancement, but of poverty of thought.

No, that's just your *opinion* based on your desire for a TTY text
environment. The concept of "advanced" or "retarded" doesn't apply.
Isn't the point of TTY text a lowest common denominator environment?
Isn't the point avoiding advanced features not supported by all?

Look, formatted text IS a true superset of unformatted text. A
thing with more features and capabilities than something else is
advanced, pure and simple.

Your desires, evaluations and opinions are an unrelated matter.

But you don't get to choose other people's actions for them,..

??? The reply doesn't seem to connect to the quoted bit at all.

 

[Guest]

Personally, I'm getting more and more fed up of off-topic bickering such
as has been seen in this thread, and it's getting to the point where I
would go for the second option rather than the first, because the first
only leads to asinine threads like this one.

I am amazed that it has taken you this long to figure that out.
The boy is becoming a man.

--

 

[Richard Heathfield]

[...] I read my email in vi (well, all right, vim). [...]

Do you do it ~comfortably~?

Yes. I have an excellent office-type chair, with a nice leather cover and
proper armrests.

I've always wanted to do this but have never
found a non-clumbsy way to do it.

vi em*

That's pretty elegant.

May I email you regarding your setup?
(In plain-text, of course.)

Well, you could, but I get about a thousand emails a day, so yours might get
lost in the noise. (No, I'm not joking or exaggerating. I wish I were.)

I'm currently in the process of solving my kiloemail problem. Normal service
will be resumed in several months. I hope.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

No, those words would not be appropriate.

Clearly, we disagree.

"Undesirable" (for
arguably good reasons) or "unwelcome"

I agree with those.

or "dangerous"

I don't see that one.

or "unwieldy"
or "problematic" would all be appropriate words.

Yes to those.

No, that's just your *opinion* based on your desire for a TTY text
environment.

No, it's my opinion based on my desire for a low threshold for
interoperability. When I write a letter for immediate printing and posting,
I use a word processor (Lotus WordPro, if you care), with proportional
fonts, italics, colour, or whatever seems appropriate. But when I send
information to someone, I want to maximise their chance of reading it
swiftly and efficiently, without having to dig out some special software or
having to switch to a different OS. I don't send people WordPro docs unless
I know for sure that they use WordPro as their word processor of choice
(and I'm the only one I know who uses it!) Text is just about the most
portable form of computer communication there is, so I think it makes sense
for everyone to use it when interfacing with each other, except when *all*
parties to a communication agree to use some other format that (by accident
or design) they can all access.

The concept of "advanced" or "retarded" doesn't apply.
Isn't the point of TTY text a lowest common denominator environment?
Yes.

Isn't the point avoiding advanced features not supported by all?

The point is to maximise communication by minimising barriers to
communication.

??? The reply doesn't seem to connect to the quoted bit at all.

But it is. The point I was making is simple enough. You say that there are
more choices than the two I presented. But you don't have control over the
choices people make. In practice, the two I outlined are, IMHO, the most
likely that people in clc will make. I may be wrong about that, of course,
but I don't believe I am.

 

[Bob Chan]

vi em*

That's pretty elegant.

Thanks a lot.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Thanks a lot.

Sorry if you didn't like the answer, but I'm perfectly serious. That's
currently how I read email.

 

[Richard Bos]

Not intending to open another can of worms, but MIME multi-part
would (almost) solve the problem. One part plain text, one part
HTML. Everyone wins.

Except for those readers that don't do MIME, either. :-\

And except for those news servers which are decent enough to kill all
multi-part posts in non-binary newsgroups. Mine does.

Richard