Subj : Re^3: Nomination
To : Rob Swindell
From : Tim Schattkowsky
Date : Fri Feb 28 2025 07:14 pm
//Hello Rob,//
on *27.02.2025* at *20:36:22* You wrote in Area *FTSC_PUBLIC*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"Re^2: Nomination"*.
RS> Re: Re^2: Nomination
RS> By: Tim Schattkowsky to Rob Swindell on Thu Feb 27 2025 03:30 pm
>> Hello Rob,
RS> >
>> on 27.02.2025 at 7:05:46 You wrote in Area FTSC_PUBLIC to Tim Schattkowsky
>> about "Re: Nomination".
RS> >
>> >> this area we see clearly that in reality there is almost no CP437 and
>> a
>> >> busload if IBMPC ...
RS> >
>> RS> Are you talking about the CHRS kludge values?
RS> >
>> Yes.
RS> >
>> RS> Here's the counts as I see for this area currently:
RS> >
>> RS> $ grep -c CHRS.*IBMPC
>> RS> 70
RS> >
>> RS> $ grep -c CHRS.*CP437
>> RS> 516
RS> >
>> RS> $ grep -c CHRS.*UTF-8
>> RS> 686
RS> >
>> Okay, you just figured out what people are TALKING about ;) Searching for
>> actual kludge values may yield different results.
RS> >
>> Anyway, my search was also wrong. Correct results for my message base
>> (dating back for this area to 2006, cannot say if there are holes in time)
>> are:
RS> >
>> IBMPC: 2245
>> CP437: 3385
RS> There are other charsets too, most importantly: ASCII
>> Different numbers, but still they show that there is a quite lot of usage
>> of IBMPC and you have to admit, that this echo might attract more than
>> average of CP437 advocates.
RS> >
>> Simple question: Name advantages and disadvantages of using CP437 in
>> outgoing messages!
RS> If the message only contains 7-bit ASCII chars, I think it should fly the
RS> "ASCII" CHRS kludge value, not CP437. Hopefully that's what this message
RS> is reporting! :-)
Generally, this is more about the system capabilites than the actual message. So even if most messages from a user of a certain system are plain ASCII, there may be all thos borders and ASCII art that are sometimes also used that need a clear definition beyond ASCII.
Regards,
Tim
--- WinPoint 415.0
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:2/29)
