Subj : when a practice does it better.
To   : Tim Schattkowsky
From : Michiel van der Vlist
Date : Thu Feb 27 2025 04:15 pm

Hello Tim,

On Thursday February 27 2025 15:42, you wrote to me:

 TS> Start thinking: Since FTS-5003 itself suggests that systems
 TS> implementing the standard should process IBMPC as CP437,

That is NOT what FTS-5003 says. You are reading things that are not there.

This is what is says:

  > Since the "IBMPC" identifier, initially used to indicate IBM
  > codepage 437, eventually evolved into identifying "any IBM
  > codepage"

 TS> the standard itself says that using IBMPC for outgoing messages is
 TS> just the same as using CP437 minus compatibility.

Negative. What is says is that IBMPC can actually mean any CPxxx. IBMPC is NOT equivalent to CP437. It can just as well mean CP850. Or CP1252. THAT is what FTS-5003 says.

 TS> Since we talk charsets standards: nearly half of what was written in
 TS> any of the older charset standards in the past was plain nonsense from
 TS> todays perspective.

Really? I say it has evolved. Many character sets in use - many to conform to 7 bit limitations - are no longer in use. The level 1 sets, are no longer in use. But saying they were plain nonsense is eh.. nonsense.

Level 1 sets became obsolete when it was realised that Fidonet is fully 8 bit complient. And so level 2 sets became popular. I may add that this area is not representative for Fidonet as a whole. Presenly most messages are written in Cyrillic usinp CP866. LATIN-1 and CP850. Are a good second. UTF-8 is growing. CP437 has become a minority.

 TS>  Much of it was always broken.

Broken? What was broken? Broken in what way?

 TS> Think of those funny ideas about character sizes.

What about it?

 TS> So why think the standard where everybody just stopped working is so
 TS> much better?

???? Please write the above in German, maybe I will understand what you mean.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
 * Origin: Nieuw Schnøørd (2:280/5555)

.