ARGUS - DARPA's All-Seeing Eye
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: New DSLR lenses from Nikon
Next: Hole punch cloud
From: R Davis on 13 Feb 2010 00:32 On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 05:58:10 +0100, Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap(a)arumes.com> wrote: >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. You're trying to talk sense to an idiot troll that just spews nonsense for attention. You'll also find that it never posts any valid photography information whatsoever. It also posts under the monicker of Chrlz mark.thomas.7(a)gmail.com It's best to just ignore it exists. These news-groups are crawling wall to wall with similar idiots.
From: Peter on 13 Feb 2010 09:48 "R Davis" <spamless(a)anon.com> wrote in message news:f8ecn5dh32fl9v495806ip5j9dri9gqoq8(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 05:58:10 +0100, Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap(a)arumes.com> >>Get a clue, John. Unless you enjoy making a fool of yourself. > > You're trying to talk sense to an idiot troll that just spews nonsense for > attention. You'll also find that it never posts any valid photography > information whatsoever. It also posts under the monicker of Chrlz > mark.thomas.7(a)gmail.com It's best to just ignore it exists. These > news-groups are crawling wall to wall with similar idiots. > Not idiots. Just some very sick, prejudiced and/or opinionated people. Although I agree it's probably best to ignore most of them, all too often they make statements that unknowing innocents may rely on. -- Peter
From: John McWilliams on 13 Feb 2010 10:41 Robert Spanjaard wrote: > 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. The clue is for you, "Robert". The point is the 'fixes' you posted worked only for a small number of people, with specific news clients. It'd be thoughtful to post URLs in a manner that most people can use them with the least trouble. -- lsmft
From: Robert Spanjaard on 13 Feb 2010 11:51 On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:41:21 -0800, John McWilliams wrote: >>> 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? Well? >>> 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. [...] >> Get a clue, John. Unless you enjoy making a fool of yourself. > > > The clue is for you, "Robert". The point is the 'fixes' you posted > worked only for a small number of people, with specific news clients. > > It'd be thoughtful to post URLs in a manner that most people can use > them with the least trouble. Again, 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. -- Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: John McWilliams on 13 Feb 2010 12:06
Robert Spanjaard wrote: > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:41:21 -0800, John McWilliams wrote: >> >> It'd be thoughtful to post URLs in a manner that most people can use >> them with the least trouble. > > Again, 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. As you will. There are quite a few 'standards' that exist that are impractical- i.e., just not followed by the biggest of the big. The standard that works for URLs is enclosing it in brackets < >, and having no line breaks, CRs or other white space or characters in it. Shack can ah sohn goo, and all. -- john mcwilliams |