Subj : Switchover to 3.3.0
To   : mark lewis
From : Michiel van der Vlist
Date : Sun Jan 13 2013 14:49:13

Hello mark,

On Friday January 11 2013 12:20, you wrote to me:

 ml>> why? why not just allow the the current set plus those above 127?

 MvdV>> That's exactly what it is supposed to do! Should I have called
 MvdV>> it AllowHighAscii to make it more clear for you? ;-)

 ml> or perhaps you misunderstood me? bj”rn's patched makenl (2.51??)
 ml> already allowed this years ago when he let it out for everyone to
 ml> use... automatically and no config verbs or similar...

I know about Bj”rn's patched version. But - sorry Bj”rn just stating reality - 
that is a dead end. we now have a version with SOURCE that we can adapt to our 
needs. When one has the source one can do so much more than patching the object 
code with debug, so that that fork is the best path to continue the journey.

 ml>>  i don't recall the nodelist being specified as CP437 but
 ml>> traditionally, that is what it has been...

 MvdV>> Certainly not! The nodelist is and never was CP437. It is and
 MvdV>> always has been plain ASCII.

 ml> pedantry bites again :( DOS machines have uses CP437 as their base
 ml> default since way back when...

Even that is not true. The /earliest/ IBM PCs did not have an extended 
character set at all. It just stopped at 127.

 ml>  fidonet was created in the US where the St. Louis nodelist format was
 ml> created... the US used CP437 as the default back then...

So what? Fidonet and the nodelist in particular is and never was platform 
specific.

 ml> so, when creating a text file on a DOS machine, what codepage do you
 ml> suppose is/was used??

I have no need to suppose anyting. The platform that it was created on has 
nothing to do with product. And the specs for that product clearly say:

  The nodelist is a flat text file containing any number of lines,
  using only the ASCII (7 bit) character set.

 MvdV>> In all the history of Fidonet there never was a global nodelist
 MvdV>> published with characters > 127. Not thet I know of anyway.

 ml> then you've not been paying attention... unless i'm mistaken, bj”rn's
 ml> patched makenl allowed for such and he did post his segment with such
 ml> at one time...

I know. But that never made it to the "globally published nodelist".

 ml> however, if others up the line refused to use that patched makenl (ie:
 ml> Z2) then that's a "local" or "regional" problem... this could have
 ml> been being done years ago... at least since 1999 IIRC...

Yes it could. And maybe it should. But it wasn't. And now we have chosen 
another fork.

 ml> you really need to not be so damned myopic, michiel... my comment was
 ml> about not getting involved in yet another (stupid??) (heated??)
 ml> argument with those that think they know better than anyone else no
 ml> matter who they are...

As I see it, you are doing just that... getting involved in arguement.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)

.