From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 31 May 2010 11:57 Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Guillaume Dargaud <use_my_web_form(a)www.gdargaud.net> writes: >> I'm playing with grep/sed on ISO-8859-1 encoded files, [...] > > Please don't be put off by the nit-picking flame war that has broken > out because of my post. Ignorance must be bliss. For you anyway. > People are helpful here and you can get this issue sorted if you > persevere. And to learn to read. There was no nit-picking flame whatsoever in my correction to your posting, there was a lot of helpful information. PointedEars
From: Janis Papanagnou on 1 Jun 2010 11:34 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Janis Papanagnou wrote: > >> [*] There's a better nitpick here, BTW; the definition of byte is not >> generally an 8 bit quantity, > > In which century or parallel universe, please?¹ Computer science, earth, "third stone from the sun". > >> so it's better to define it as 8-bit byte or as octet. > > Unnecessary. "Byte" without context is readily understood as being that; "The term octet was explicitly defined to denote a sequence of 8 bits because of the *ambiguity* associated with the term byte and is widely used in communications protocol specifications." [emphasis added] "a byte was the number of bits (typically 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 16) used to encode a single character of text in a computer" [From the link you posted.] > certainly it is in this newsgroup. RFCs aside, "octet" is the French > pervasion of "byte" nowadays, No. An octet is the quantity of 8 bits; it's *unambiguous* in computer science. "Octet refers to an entity having *exactly* eight bits." [emphasis added] [From the link you posted.] Janis > and in English it is even more ambiguous than > "byte".² So much for nitpicking. > > > Because of your other followup: Score adjusted, and EOD. > > PointedEars > ___________ > ¹ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte> > ² <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octet>
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: $$jordan coach bag ed tshirt with amazing price Next: shell script - resque |