Print

Print


That's a perfectly cromulent use of "cyberspace", yes.  The term
itself is a bit dated, though - the kids these days just call it "teh
intarwebz". ;)

On 4/24/09, Andrew Jarrette <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> --- In [log in to unmask], "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...> wrote:
>> > --- In [log in to unmask], "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> And what operating system and web browser are you using?
>> > Windows 2000 and Mozilla Firefox.  I'm still looking to find out where I
>> > saw the strange characters.
>>
>>
>> Is it possible it was in a quoted reply from someone else?   We do
>> have some subscribers who still have trouble with such characters, so
>> even though they may go out of your computer fine and come back fine,
>> they can get mangled in someone else's quotation of your text.
>>
>> > I believe I use ASCII codes?  I'm really rather deficient in terminology
>> > and technological
>> >  know-how
>>
>> The deficiency is on the part of the technologists who haven't managed
>> to make this stuff transparent to the foolks who don't have the
>> know-how yet.  It's like having to be a mechanic just to start up your
>> car and drive it to the grocery store.
>>
>> Anyway, ASCII (the American Standard Code for Information Interchange)
>> is the common subset of characters that works just about everywhere:
>> plain letters with no diacritical marks, some punctuation (including
>> standalone diacritical marks that were intended to be used as
>> overstrikes back when everything was printed on paper), etc;
>> basically, the characters you can type on the keyboard with bare keys
>> and shifted keys, with no alt key.  There are only 128 characters in
>> ASCII, and 25% of those are taken up by control codes, most of which
>> aren't used much in plain text.
>>
>> The accented characters, characters in other alphabets, etc, come from
>> a much larger character repertoire called Unicode, which has room for
>> over a million different characters, not nearly filled, with
>> characters from all over the world and the distant past as well as the
>> present. We want everything to be in Unicode all the time, and we're
>> getting there.
>>
>> But we're not there yet.  In between ASCII and Unicode there were a
>> bunch of other character sets, each designed for a particular region
>> or purpose, each only double the size of ASCII.  The problem is
>> there's no way to tell just by looking at the data what character set
>> it's supposed to be in.  So now we have text flying around in all
>> sorts of different encodings, being converted to and from Unicode and
>> plain-ASCII encodings of Unicode, and it's very complicated and easy
>> for the software (or the programmer) to get wrong.
>>
>> Someday.
>>
>> --
>> Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
>>
>
> Nevertheless, thanks very much for the informative and helpful reply.  Good
> to know that there are people like you in cyberspace. (Now, is that a
> correct use of modern technological terminology?)
>
> Andrew Jarrette
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>