From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on
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
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>