ARGUS - DARPA's All-Seeing Eye
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: New DSLR lenses from Nikon
Next: Hole punch cloud
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 12 Feb 2010 13:02 Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap(a)arumes.com> wrote: > No, they don't. Official URL-formatting supports line breaks. Would you kindly point me to the relevant RFC? > If your reader can't handle them, your reader is the problem. Interesting idea, that ... "if you/your gear can't handle it, it's your/your gear's problem". What happened to 'be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you receive'? Would you like your camera or RAW converter to produce legal TIFF files that happen to be unusable for photoshop or whatever you use these TIFFs for? -Wolfgang
From: Robert Spanjaard on 12 Feb 2010 16:22 On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:02:15 +0000, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: >> No, they don't. Official URL-formatting supports line breaks. > > Would you kindly point me to the relevant RFC? http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986 Appendix C. >> If your reader can't handle them, your reader is the problem. > > Interesting idea, that ... "if you/your gear can't handle it, it's > your/your gear's problem". What happened to 'be conservative in what > you send and liberal in what you receive'? Since when do you care? Your messages may have a thin layer of supposed politeness, but the tone beneath that layer isn't exactly conservative. > Would you like your camera or RAW converter to produce legal TIFF files > that happen to be unusable for photoshop or whatever you use these TIFFs > for? What exactly are "legal TIFF files"? I don't have any objection to the TIFF formats I know. -- Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: me on 12 Feb 2010 17:49 On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:47:34 -0600, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >Errr, and YOU did what, Professor? At least what I quoted directly supported the point I was making. Can you in good faith assert the same? If it was wrong when I did it, wasn't wrong when you did it?
From: John McWilliams on 12 Feb 2010 21:24 Robert Spanjaard wrote: > On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:32:12 -0800, John McWilliams wrote: > >>>>> You can even send wrapped URLs if you enclose them in < and > >>>>> characters, like you should. I corrected the quoted URL that way. >>>> Didn't work here. >>> Didn't work here either. Seems like newsreaders have problems handling >>> quoted wrapped links. It does work when you post it as new text: >>> >>> <http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plc >>> kBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&pl >>> ckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a881370e5-a10f-46be- >>> bab0-bf60fa08b425&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest> >> As I pointed out yesterday, the breaks have to be removed from the URL. > > No, they don't. Official URL-formatting supports line breaks. > If your reader can't handle them, your reader is the problem. > > http://www.arumes.com/temp/link.png > What does that dead (as it's an image) link prove? You deleted the part wherein I said not all clients handle fully broken links. You later cite a five year old RFC, but some of us are talking practicality, as well as what's most useful for the greatest number. Blindly blaming what other readers can or can not do is not helpful. Just because your client can put together badly broken links doesn't mean you cannot format them for the larger number of other readers. -- lsmft
From: Robert Spanjaard on 12 Feb 2010 23:58
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:24:06 -0800, John McWilliams wrote: >>> As I pointed out yesterday, the breaks have to be removed from the >>> URL. >> >> No, they don't. Official URL-formatting supports line breaks. If your >> reader can't handle them, your reader is the problem. >> >> http://www.arumes.com/temp/link.png >> > What does that dead (as it's an image) link prove? It doesn't prove, and I never said or implied it does. I posted it to show users of other programs how Pan handles wrapped URLs, which is how they should be handled. > You deleted the part wherein I said not all clients handle fully broken > links. I already answered that part. > You later cite a five year old RFC, What does that "five year old" mean? Is it too young? Too old? How old should it be accordig to you to be valid? > but some of us are talking > practicality, as well as what's most useful for the greatest number. That's what sticking to standards is for. Which is what I did. I'm not going to keep track of all the bugs in every program to avoid them. > Blindly blaming what other readers can or can not do is not helpful. I agree, which is why I'm not blaming blindly. > Just because your client can put together badly broken links doesn't > mean you cannot format them for the larger number of other readers. They aren't badly broken. They are wrapped as they should be wrapped. Get a clue, John. Unless you enjoy making a fool of yourself. -- Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com |